Proof Found For Rationalization Hamster?

A new study shows that people will rationalize their shitty situations if they think that they’re stuck with them. (See also: sour grapes.)

People who feel like they’re stuck with a rule or restriction are more likely to be content with it than people who think that the rule isn’t definite. The authors of a new study, which will be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, say this conclusion may help explain everything from unrequited love to the uprisings of the Arab Spring.

Psychological studies have found two contradictory results about how people respond to rules. Some research has found that, when there are new restrictions, you rationalize them; your brain comes up with a way to believe the restriction is a good idea. But other research has found that people react negatively against new restrictions, wanting the restricted thing more than ever.

Kristin Laurin of the University of Waterloo thought the difference might be absoluteness — how much the restriction is set in stone. “If it’s a restriction that I can’t really do anything about, then there’s really no point in hitting my head against the wall and trying to fight against it,” she says. “I’m better off if I just give up. But if there’s a chance I can beat it, then it makes sense for my brain to make me want the restricted thing even more, to motivate me to fight” Laurin wrote the new paper with Aaron Kay and Gavan Fitzsimons of Duke University.

So does this prove the existence of the infamous female rationalization hamster? Well, almost. The study was gender-inspecific, so what it tells us is that people in general will rationalize their powerlessness so as to assuage their tender egos in the face of unchangeable circumstances. We will have to continue to rely on experimental reports from the field and incisive observations into the womanly condition from Chateau proprietors for evidence of a particularly mighty breed of female-specific hamster. There is strong anecdotal data that such a female-particular breed exists; it is now up to scientists with the balls to snicker at feminist shrieking to bravely test the hypothesis.

When a rule, a restriction, or a circumstance is fixed and inalterable, our tendency is to act like we are perfectly OK with our lack of choice or station in life. In contrast, when we feel like we have a real shot to change our circumstances, we are less likely to resign ourselves to fate, and less likely to pretend as if we wanted our crappy lot in life all along. So if you want to see the hamster spin wildly, make sure the little bugger has no hope of escape from his wheeled hellmatrix. He’ll spin, spin until he loses all touch with reality.

I think we’ve seen plenty of examples of self-gratifying spinning in the comments on this blog, not to mention just about anywhere in the informational universe where feminists congregate to kvetch. And the spinning is not just limited to feminists. Most losers in the mating game have experienced the crush of 5 Gs in their hamster wheels. I find these kinds of people fall into two camps: the pity whores (woe is me, i’m a loser, there’s nothing i can do about it, so stop trying to help people like me, you’re only leading us astray with your advice), and the delusion zombies (i’m not a loser, i have everything i need in life, single cougarhood, five cats and a niceguy beta orbiter are exactly what i’ve always wanted).

To bring this study closer to the mission statement of this blog, what does it imply about love?

And how does this relate to unrequited love? It confirms people’s intuitive sense that leading someone can just make them fall for you more deeply, Laurin says. “If this person is telling me no, but I perceive that as not totally absolute, if I still think I have a shot, that’s just going to strengthen my desire and my feeling, that’s going to make me think I need to fight to win the person over,” she says. “If instead I believe no, I definitely don’t have a shot with this person, then I might rationalize it and decide that I don’t like them that much anyway.”

Bulls-eye. An elegant confirmation of push-pull game theory. Drawing a woman in, then pushing her away by, for example, disqualifying yourself or her, will switch the courtship dynamic around so that she is in the role of the chaser, instead of the typical female role of the chased. A woman who isn’t sure you really like her because your actions are calculated to deliver an ambiguous message, is more likely to press the seduction forward than she would with either a fulsomely unambiguous man or a completely uninterested man.

If you flirt with a woman, raise her buying temperature, but then show no interest at all in her for the remainder of the night, she will rationalize her rejection by telling herself she never really wanted you.

There are many real-world examples of women rationalizing their rejection or low sexual market value. Below, I list some of the more common ones.

“I’m not interested in guys who like anorexic women.” 
“Men my age won’t date me? I prefer younger men anyway.” 
“Men are intimidated by my intelligence/career/education.” 
“Men don’t like opinionated women.” 
“Women reach their sexual peak at 35!” 
“I get all the love I need from my child.” 
“I was looking for a one night stand, too.” 
“No man is good enough for me and my child.” 
“Men are afraid of commitment.” 
“Now that I’m older I choose my men more carefully.” 
“Men refuse to grow up and settle down.” 
“Men who date younger girls can’t handle women their age.” 
“I’ve grown into my beauty.” 
“Real men appreciate my curves.” 
“A confident man loves a woman with experience.” 
“I’m not dating because I need me-time.” 
“He stopped calling because he got scared.” 

And, of course, the all-time favorite rationalization of the castaway driftwood of womankind:

“There are no good men left.” 

Some may ask why I so confidently assert that the female rationalization hamster is stronger and speedier than the male rationalization hamster. The answer is simple. Since women are the more biologically valuable sex, they have a lot more ego to lose — and hence to spin into hamsterrific delusion — by being rejected or downgraded to the invisible fringes of the mating market.





Comments


  1. absolutely brilliant.

    Like


    • on November 4, 2011 at 8:40 pm humansocialdynamics

      Evolutionary psychology, like any growing scientific discipline, is moving extremely quickly at the moment. In the past few years it has come up with models that provide much better fine-grained explanations of situations that old-school psychologists fail at.

      The problem with this article is that it’s not really science. It’s stamp collecting. It explains how things are, but not why they’re that way, and it doesn’t explain why they couldn’t be some other way. Why is the female hamster so full of shit? Who knows. It is, but no explanation is given as to why.

      I’ll give you an attempt then. The first thing you need to remember is that conscious thought exists as a communication device, not as a decision making device. We already know this: women don’t consciously decide which men they are attracted to, the though just pops into their head. Keeping thought processes unconscious is useful, because it makes it easier to lie about them when necessary. See “Why Everyone (Else) Is A Hypocrite” – Kurzban.

      Rationalization is then an important part of this process. Nobody wants to recruit a depressed person as an ally. If your life is shit, then chances are there is very little that you can do to help me with mine. You’ll just suck value without giving anything in return.

      Thus, if something in your life sucks, you’re best off attempting to fix it at first, but then consciously forgetting it ever existed. Sure, in your unconscious decision-making modules the information will still be there, but you will struggle to communicate your weaknesses to anyone else, because you’ve forgotten they even exist.

      Keep in mind, this is a universal process that happens in both sexes. Calling women the “biologically more valuable sex” is just bad evolutionary biology”. More valuable how? Both sexes have incentives to lie at different times and in different ways. Game is, in itself, an act of lying. That’s why it’s so useful.

      It’s been said that nothing in biological makes sense except in light of evolution. Human mating is biology too, so the same thing applies. Yes, this study has provided additional confirmation of an interesting effect, unconsciously-driven social lying. But it also is non-specific to mating situation, where the rules do change.

      Like


      • Some good points. However:

        “Calling women the “biologically more valuable sex” is just bad evolutionary biology”. More valuable how?”

        More valuable in the sense that men are expendable in reproduction. In theory if 9/10 men were killed there would still be enough sperm to go around.

        Like


      • “Game is, in itself, an act of lying. That’s why it’s so useful.”

        No, the essence of Game is a man treating himself with respect. You’re a stupid person PRETENDING to be smart.

        Like


      • on November 6, 2011 at 12:41 am humansocialdynamics

        I meant lying in the biological sense, don’t go crazy dude.

        Like


      • “Calling women the ‘biologically more valuable sex’ is just bad evolutionary biology. More valuable how?”

        In the words of Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene, “Males, then, seem to be pretty worthless fellows and on simple ‘good of the species’ grounds, we might expect that males would become less numerous than females. Since one male can theoretically produce enough sperms to service a harem of 100 females we might suppose that females should outnumber males in animal populations by 100 to 1. Other ways of putting this are that the male is more ‘expendable,’ and the female more ‘valuable’ to the species. Of course, looked at from the point of view of the species as a whole, this is perfectly true.”

        Since women are baby machines, they stand to lose more by making poor mating decisions.

        Like


      • on November 5, 2011 at 9:41 pm humansocialdynamics

        Yeah, keep in mind however that Dawkins is speaking in general, not scientific terms when he says that. This is the guy who wrote “The Selfish Gene” remember, the book that pretty much destroyed the species-based selection fallacy back in the 1970s.

        My point is, and this is something that Dawkins would happily agree with, because I’m getting it from him… My point is that because species-based selection is not a real effect, it has no input into the way that our evolved instincts are calibrated. Therefore it is not a useful concept for predicting behavior.

        Yes, in a wider sense, we can see that men are unimportant. But evolution, and therefore out instincts, cannot see that, therefore it is not a useful concept with regards to making useful predictions about game.

        But yes, women do tend to be more selective. Just be careful in how you frame that statement, because otherwise you’ll end up making faulty predictions. I’d go on, but maybe another time.

        Like


      • on November 6, 2011 at 2:05 am humansocialdynamics

        Also, that sentence is a prelude to the section where he describes how, despite “good of the species” predicting more females than males, there are actually slightly more males than females. This is because it is in the incentive of your genes to have equal numbers of adult male and female offspring, a males die in adolecense at a slightly higher rate than females.

        Don’t take quotes out of context bro.

        Like


  2. Thank you, leader of the Chateau, for the list of hamster responses.

    Someone needs a repository of ALL of them. This is a good starting point.

    Men, remember these hamster wheel spinning responses. When you hear them from a woman, you know she’s just placed herself way below you in status.

    Like


    • By the way, that gal Kate Bolick who wrote the Atlantic article on “All the Single Ladies” just announced that SonyTV just optioned her article for a TV show, now under works.

      Like


    • And no thank you, leader of the Chateau, for all of those spinning hamster gifs. I think you fried my processor.

      Like


  3. maybe there are times when they themselves are not convinced, but are using these rationalizations to save face with their female buddies.

    just a thought.

    Like


    • That’s the most likely reason. We want to be successful to lord it over our peers and prove we’re having a more fabulous life than they.

      Like


    • on November 4, 2011 at 8:41 pm humansocialdynamics

      Pretty much. Except that people can do that without consciously realizing that they are lying. Socially useful delusions are far common than most people realize

      Like


  4. That’s an interesting study. It would explain why when traveling to poor countries, the peasants often seem at peace with their lot. More so than poor people here in the states who are actually better off, yet have more hope of improving their lot. The restriction isn’t as absolute, so the frustration and anger rises to the surface.

    Like


    • This particular observation also has lots to do with people comparing themselves to those in their immediate surroundings. Poor amongst poor, is not nearly the stigma of poor amongst rich.

      Like


      • on November 4, 2011 at 5:16 pm (R)evoluzione

        Studies on happiness show it’s best to be moderately wealthy in a poorer county. These folks lead the league in reported happiness.

        Like


      • on November 4, 2011 at 8:44 pm humansocialdynamics

        Really though, what studies show is that it’s better to be high social status. I would be interesting to see the stats on how guys with tight inner game (ie a sense of high status) fare again other groups for happiness. My guess is that we’d do very well indeed.

        Like


      • Exactly. The frustration and anger is really caused by unfuliflled higher expectations and the sense of being lower status rather than poverty. That’s why I have a hard time feeling sympathy for the professional poor in America.

        Like


    • That’s partly why the belief in reincarnation is more prevalent in poorer societies.

      No matter how shitty life is now, if you are “good” you stand a chance of coming back with a better lot in life.

      Like


  5. And this is not a new development either. Take for example this 2000 year old text.

    But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

    For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

    And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

    Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

    Like


    • on November 5, 2011 at 12:52 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM)

      lzozozlzolz

      dose GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN really are somstehings!! zlzozolzolzozoz

      now all you fanboyz can see why the elite bernkififiying fiat masters trained an army of fmeinsist to go forth and deocnstsrsuct them allalal zlzozozoooo

      Like


      • The Bible is a great book (I’m not religious) but what is more important is the translation you read. IMO, one of the best is the Ferrar-Fenton Bible – the translation is much more accurate, and was done without an agenda to promote. You will come away with a different understanding than that which has been explained to you by your local Black Robed Agent of Satan.
        http://thetencommandmentsministry.us/ministry/ferrar_fenton/

        Like


  6. my personal favorite

    “Men are afraid of commitment.”

    Like


    • I sure am. Who the heck would want to commit to the kind of banged up, old jalopies that comprise the mouthpieces for Western womanhood these days.

      And I’m far from a reflexive player. JFK cheating on Jackie strikes me as about the epitome of insanity on his part, options or not. That’s one I’d commit to in a heartbeat, if women of such grace were still around.

      Like


      • But that’s not afraid, that’s being smart.
        It means being sane too, only a fool would reward the modern bang machines with commitment.

        Like


      • The reason JFK cheated on Jackie is the same as why a dog licks its own balls.

        Because he can.

        Like


    • I used to always be coy whenever commitment came up, until I realized this is such a fundamental Big Deal to women that I was shooting myself in the foot. Much better and easier to tell them something they want to hear. Commitment (or the prospect) is the fuel that keeps that little hamster running.

      Like


      • on November 4, 2011 at 7:14 pm flyfreshandyoung

        The prospect of commitment is what you want to go with. Never brought up, never hinted at, just there for her to imagine, regardless of how you feel either way. Lead her on. You will lose if you are the first one to bring it up.

        Like


  7. This idea is closely related to the concept of synthetic happiness: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy.html.

    Like


    • on November 5, 2011 at 2:40 am humansocialdynamics

      I’m not a huge fan of Dan Gilbert. Like most old-school psychologists he forgets one important fact: the brain exists for a purpose. Yes, people are really bad at predicting what will make them happy. Yes, a good attitude can make you more or less happy, and you can even “synthesize” happiness.

      But happiness or the lack thereof exists for a reason. The brain isn’t some blank slate with happy on one end and sad on the other. When you fail to get what you want, end up getting something else, and then feel genuinely happy about it, that’s just your brain being engineered to keep working hard under adverse conditions. But if you keep getting lemons you’re gonna get sick of making lemonade eventually.

      Old-school psychology, and even many evolutionary psychologists, tend of be allergic to the idea of human status hierarchies. But the fact is, no matter who you are, the most important thing for both men and women is to be alpha. Until you have status, you can go through your whole life feeling happy and content without really receiving the benefits.

      Look up the Whitehall study for a great example of this. Being happy, content, eating a great diet and exercising plenty are all useful for living a long, stress-free life. But if you’re a lowly clerk in the British civil service you’ll still have a lower life expectancy than a high ranking administrator, something that held true for both men and women, even adjusting for non-status factors. It’s all about social status.

      Like


      • Lower grade jobs have people with lower IQ’s. That’s the reason they die earlier. Not the lack of status.

        Like


      • on November 7, 2011 at 2:44 am humansocialdynamics

        Nah that was the whole point of the Whitehall study. They controlled for all other factors. Lack of status was the sole remaining factor.

        Science. It works bitches.

        Like


      • short men tend to have longer life expectancy than tall men even though height is supposedly an important genetic proxy for status, as many women will admit.

        Explain…..

        Like


  8. It helps if you read the last section with this playing in the bg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJv5qLsLYoo

    Brilliant…and hilarious

    Like


  9. on November 4, 2011 at 12:40 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM)

    lzoozlzlzlz

    gather round my fine fanboyz
    gather round for 2days seermrm sermom sermon lzozzl
    there are those who say they are going
    who do not go
    and there are those who say they are not going
    who go
    now heartistse never claimed to be a holy roller
    like so many evangeleistsst
    heartistse never clameiein to be hoier than thou
    like so many neoonccss
    heartsitse never told you to man up
    but only asked you to rise up to your higher potential
    heartistse never akss you to write his blog for him
    but he carries the cross 4 u lzozozoz
    heartistse never demands that u pay him (to read stories on sceertely taped butthexing secermonies because heartistse does not secrteely tape his butthexing exscapaged like da sosdom nieocnss lzozlzoz)
    but heartiste,
    like socrates and jesus
    teaches freely
    han solo was the star wars charceter who said he was not going
    he said he was leaving the final crusade against the death star as there was nothing in it for him
    but then, just as darth vader is closing in on luke’s x wing
    han solo comes back in his millenium falcon
    and herocially shoots darth vader diabling his tie fighter
    for han solo was one of those
    who said he was not going
    but who went
    just like heartistse
    so when all those who say they are going
    like bill benneterr charrlotee allen jonag goldberg
    do not beleive them
    and when heartisste says he is not going
    do not beeive him either,
    for it is he
    who goes
    while it are they
    who do not
    for the truth will set you free
    and thus heartsiste doth set ye free
    by writing verity

    Give not that which is holy to the dogs, neither cast you your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
    (lzozozlzl like how the ravening femineinsist neoocncosn trample on roissys;s oears of wisdodomz zlzozozo)

    7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you: 8For every one that asks receives; and he that seeks finds; and to him that knocks it shall be opened. 9Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

    12Therefore all things whatever you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

    13Enter you in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads to life, and few there be that find it. (now jessuth is not talking about a anarow anuth as the neoncs would have you beleibev etleleing you to lube up!)

    15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. (Bill Bennett) 16You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? (He is secertetary of eductaion and drug czar–he is a bureaucrtrtat who producedss bureuacratic fruits like bigger government telling men to man up to fund his ganmbling) 17Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. (gambling away millionz) 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Why by their fruits you shall know them. (gambling belwtay warmonegering fmeinistsin exlating lawyaer)

    21Not every one that said to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. 9Depart from me, Bill BEnntetete, for Heartsiste creates the true fruit–da atstsy fruit yum yum based in Truth zlzozzlzlzoz

    Like


  10. “I was looking for a one night stand, too.”

    A perfectly positioned comma for maximum impact. I loved it!

    Like


    • Barely noticed it. I recommend points of ellipses.

      Like


    • Actually, you are always supposed to use a comma before “too” when you use it at the end of a sentence. It’s not there for “maximum impact;” it’s just proper grammar.

      Like


  11. on November 4, 2011 at 12:50 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM)

    Come gather round my fine young fanboyz
    for on friday we do eat fish
    whcih means dat tonight
    i’m going deep sea diving on down
    down on my hotttie hottie lzzozozlo

    Gather round da GBFM
    and witess the heirtage the neoconssths have stolen from ye

    Listen, all ye who have just now heard the laws about Gods, and about our dear forefathers:-Of all the things which a man has, next to the Gods, his soul is the most divine and most truly his own. Now in every man there are two parts: the better and superior, which rules, and the worse and inferior, which serves; and the ruling part of him is always to be preferred to the subject. Wherefore I am right in bidding every one next to the Gods, who are our masters, and those who in order follow them [i.e., the demons], to honour his own soul, which every one seems to honour, but no one honours as he ought; for honour is a divine good, and no evil thing is honourable; and he who thinks that he can honour the soul by word or gift, or any sort of compliance, without making her in any way better, seems to honour her, but honours her not at all. For example, every man, from his very boyhood, fancies that he is able to know everything, and thinks that he honours his soul by praising her, and he is very ready to let her do whatever she may like. But I mean to say that in acting thus he injures his soul, and is far from honouring her; whereas, in our opinion, he ought to honour her as second only to the Gods. Again, when a man thinks that others are to be blamed, and not himself, for the errors which he has committed from time to time, and the many and great evils which befell him in consequence, and is always fancying himself to be exempt and innocent, he is under the idea that he is honouring his soul; whereas the very reverse is the fact, for he is really injuring her. And when, disregarding the word and approval of the legislator, he indulges in pleasure (BUTTHEX!!!!!!!!), then again he is far from honouring her; he only dishonours her, and fills her full of evil and remorse; or when he does not endure to the end the labours and fears and sorrows and pains which the legislator approves, but gives way before them, then, by yielding, he does not honour the soul, but by all such conduct he makes her to be dishonourable; nor when he thinks that life at any price is a good, does he honour her, but yet once more he dishonours her; for the soul having a notion that the world below is all evil, he yields to her, and does not resist and teach or convince her that, for aught she knows, the world of the Gods below, instead of being evil, may be the greatest of all goods. Again, when any one prefers beauty to virtue, what is this but the real and utter dishonour of the soul? For such a preference implies that the body is more honourable than the soul; and this is false, for there is nothing of earthly birth which is more honourable than the heavenly, and he who thinks otherwise of the soul has no idea how greatly he undervalues this wonderful possession; nor, again, when a person is willing, or not unwilling, to acquire dishonest gains, does he then honour his soul with gifts-far otherwise; he sells her glory and honour for a small piece of gold; but all the gold which is under or upon the earth is not enough to give in exchange for virtue. In a word, I may say that he who does not estimate the base and evil, the good and noble, according to the standard of the legislator, and abstain in every possible way from the one and practise the other to the utmost of his power, does not know that in all these respects he is most foully and disgracefully abusing his soul, which is the divinest part of man; for no one, as I may say, ever considers that which is declared to be the greatest penalty of evil-doing–namely, to grow into the likeness of bad men, and growing like them to fly from the conversation of the good, and be cut off from them, and cleave to and follow after the company of the bad. And he who is joined to them must do and suffer what such men by nature do and say to one another-a suffering which is not justice but retribution; for justice and the just are noble, whereas retribution is the suffering which waits upon injustice; and whether a man escape or endure this, he is miserable-in the former case, because he is not cured; while in the latter, he perishes in order that the rest of mankind may be saved.

    zlzozozlozozlzlzloz

    Like


    • Great progress! You’re getting there. And you even appear to have some legitimate ideas to grapple with.

      Now if only we can introduce you to the idea of multiple paragraphs. See that big oblong key to the right of your right pinky? Double tap that shit every fourth or fifth sentence, and you will verge on the readable.

      Godspeed, brother.

      Like


      • on November 5, 2011 at 12:53 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM)

        lozozlzlzz i knowwaz i mama am making inteleltcul profgress thank you every mucg for your help in ahcieieving my greater portenetilaalzz!! lzozozozlz

        Like


      • You quoted it, there’s no lllozzilssls in it.

        Like


  12. The GIFs lend a humorous sense of kinaesthesis to the Chateau’s points. I love how the hamster gets flung wildly onto its back (apropos of much) and then it struggles with groggy might to right itself..only to climb back on the wheel. To see so many hamsters doing so all at once through simple repetittion—classic. A Chateau original.

    Like


  13. But what about those who really are losers? Everyone can’t be 100% alpha and women will still flock to those who are the best. What are the ones at the bottom supposed to do?

    Like


    • It’s not about being the best or the worst in comparison to other guys.

      It’s about having higher status than the women you’re with. As long as you can keep your status above hers, it greatly reduces the risk of pussy flight.

      Pussy flight happens when women realize they’re higher status (at the moment) than their guy is. When a woman is happy with me, she’s all about me. I know the moment a woman isn’t happy, and I either bail first or I try to reinvigorate her through DHV and putting her in her proper place, status-wise (if I want to keep her around).

      This is why it’s so important, if you’re looking for a LTR, to focus on women who aren’t in certain social circles. Don’t date long term women who are bar-goers: the DJs, promoters and bouncers will be pumping and dumping her soon enough. Don’t date lawyers or doctors or Ph.D’s long term unless you’re higher in status than they are.

      The best gals to marry are those raised in tiny farm towns. Marry them and buy a house in the town one over (the competitor town to their own alma mater football team) and start a small business there. She’ll love you for life.

      I’ve come to realize that urban areas corrupt women permanently. They’re no good. My main gal grew up in the sticks of Indiana, and she lives in the sticks of the Chicago burbs. I have no fear of losing status.

      Like


      • This post strikes me as extremely insightful.

        “I’ve come to realize that urban areas corrupt women permanently.”

        Probably more specifically: The kind of social life lead by women in western urban areas. I doubt women in Taliban Kabul were nearly so badly afflicted. And there are probably middle roads.

        Like


      • Maybe not Kabul, but I’ve visited Iran (twice) and the urban women there are lost causes.

        I spend a few weekends a year in Dubai, and the urban women there are corrupted.

        Warsaw, Paris, Hamburg, Tunis, Casablanca, San Salvador, Montevideo: corrupt, corrupt, corrupt, corrupt, corrupt, corrupt and corrupt.

        Drive 30km from any of these towns, and things change. Bright eyes, IOIs offered without second thought, smiles abound.

        You’ll also find yourself with the possibility of a Protestant church raised gal who knows how to cook, isn’t covered in tats and piercings, and might only have ridden the cock carousel of the high school sports team leaders.

        Of course, some farm towns are all about the biker gangs, so YMMV.

        Like


      • Yup. Urban women = damaged goods. One shouldn’t date any lawyer/doctor/PHD as the age range of those women is way too high. And why reward feminist careerism with male company? These women are to be pumped and dumped, booty called, or FWB’d if you can tolerate their company, but no LTR’s… ever!

        Like


      • A.B. Dada, country bumpkin. Called it. Interacts with low status women. Called that too.

        Continues to make wild conjecture based on personal life anecdotes. This annoys Jesus.

        Like


      • Keep calling it — as long as you remain anonymous, all it does is make you look like a jealous beta. Trust me, I’ve had loners like you snapping at my heels all my life.

        Or, why not alpha up, post your real name and links to who you are, and you might have a chance at DHV.

        For now, you’re DLVing, and the only person paying attention to it is yourself.

        Like


      • I would agree. Persian women are often hot looking. Tell me what’s wrong with them. I’ve noticed ME women to be kind of bitchy in general. What’s your take on that?

        Like


      • on November 4, 2011 at 8:53 pm humansocialdynamics

        He has a point Adam. Women from cities are culturally resistant to giving IOIs for whatever reason. In many ways, it resembles a shit test more than anything.

        I’ve never had a problem with such women. I really fail to see why they’re so bad. You’re entitled to your opinion, and I respect your game, but you have to admit that a lot of people will see chasing country girls as the easy way out.

        I prefer a chick with a career. Me, I like to be challenged by someone who will try to take the higher status position, makes it more rewarding when I beat them. If you don’t, fine, but don’t be surprised when people shit test you the way anonymous just did.

        Like


      • I didn’t say chase country girls.

        I said *if* you want to marry, marry girls who are low maintenance. You CAN find a needle in the haystack in an urban area, but they’re extremely rare. Some people say that if you want to marry a European, don’t bring her to the States or you’ll “Americanize” her. That’s true, but it’s worse to bring a farm girl into the big city lights.

        I have urban gals in The Rotation, but they’re flighty, flakey, and their hypergamy is preprogrammed to be in overdrive because they had the alpha courage and confidence to move to a big city.

        If I settle down to have kids, it’s going to be with a sweet, adoring, doting, sexually inexperienced dame versus the cock carousel riding broad you’ll get in any urban community.

        Have fun with the city girls, but be very cautious committing to them.

        As I said in my initial post: It’s about having higher status than the women you’re with. It’s very easy for women to gain false higher status in the city. Long term relationships are about stability for the man, so why not pick from more stable candidates?

        Like


      • I don’t understand, what difference could it possibly make to you whether or not she has a “career”? If you care about personality traits, then how about if she’s smart, works hard, doesn’t sleep around and has common sense?

        Why do you begin and end it with a career or higher status position? Is she supposed to support you while you take care of the children? How does her higher status position help you maintain a marriage or LTR in any way shape or form? Will it be better for your kids if they get taken care of by a loving Mexican nanny while your woman is working on her career?

        How does it make your life better if she works in the engineering department at GE? Or if she’s a high priced lawyer? Will she come home more energized, more enthusiastic, more loving?

        And why in the world does anyone respect having a career to begin with? What does it even mean? It sounds to me like some social mind control to get you to think that the ideal way to live is to work for someone else as middle or upper management. Which coincidentally involves taking out massive student loans to get a worthless degree at some upper tier university.

        It’s funny how the idea of having a career seems to mostly benefit large corporations and heavily funded universities. Strange how that works out isn’t it?

        I don’t want a career, I want money. Scratch that. I want a great deal of money, and I’d also like power while I’m at it.

        It would be nice if I can get that doing something productive that is fun, but the one thing I definitely do not care about is a socially approved career. Anyone who actually think like that is in my book a drone or a feminist.

        Unless it’s a career as a Ninja-Pirate. I could go for that kind of career.

        Like


      • Don’t you think it’s ironic that you’re accusing someone of feeling intimidated by “sophisticated”, urban” women when that is precisely the 3rd rationalization hamster identified in the post?

        Like


      • i understand the sentiment, but there’s a fine line between self-imposed challenge and self-sabotage.

        Like


      • Of all the posts you pick this one to demonstrate that you’re the type of man that isn’t intimidated by a woman’s intelligence/career/education…

        How ironic.

        See third hamster wheel.

        Like


      • “A.B. Dada, country bumpkin. Called it. Interacts with low status women. Called that too.”

        I can somewhat understand with why you’re equating country girls with low status, but ultimately I have to disagree. With the exception of the obvious inbreds, there’s nothing specifically that necessitates an automatic low status label based on geography. Sure, you’re usually dealing with a lower SES all around, but you’re dealing with females with less self entitled attitudes too.

        AB Dada, I personally don’t think you run any risks of transplanting a small town girl to a city. It can take a full decade to resolve the inferiority feelings when trying to adjust to urban life. It’s not an instant transition.

        Like


      • Wow, who cares abput the status of their women?

        If she’s hot, that’s all that matters. Jesus is a beta or a woman. Get lost.

        Like


      • This rings true. I’ll have to keep it mind.

        Like


  14. The list of female rationalizations is hilarious.

    Like


  15. Awesome post man. This is a general problem with life and while girls are generally better askers and sellers then most men they see the other side of the coin — all the guys they want saying no. Most guys with no game are asking the girls they want and never seeing yes.

    The rationalization hamster is the gateway from information (storing, defending a principle) to transformation (the creation of new action). The more you use it, the more fucked you are. 🙂

    Like


  16. Finally. You nailed it, excellent post!

    [Heartiste: mmhmm. are you testing to see if you’re banned?]

    Like


  17. This is an enlightening post.

    The next question is, what do I do with this information?

    How can I leverage this better?

    One thing i pull from this post is you don’t have to go into over-drive or over-kill to get the IOI’s.

    All you have to do is flip the attraction switch to get the hamster going.

    Getting it spinning is the key to keeping the seduction going.

    When she’s bored, she’s not engaged.

    When you stimulate her by getting her thinking, angry, tease, push-pull, then suddenly it’s game on.

    I noticed this tonight at a party.

    A very cute girl I’d met and had deliberately not said anything to for a while smiled so I asked her to dance.

    I teased, negged, smiled and was generatlly confident.

    At one point she accidentally stepped on my foot.

    I pulled at her hair….suddenly she was giving me IOI’s for the rest of the night.

    The hair pull triggered something that made her not able to take her eyes off me. She waved goodbye as she was leaving she would never see me again.

    I think the problem is when starting out with game, Recovering AFC’s are afraid of getting the hamsters spinning because it triggers a variety of uncomfortable and very awkward emotions in girls. Some guys don’t know what to do once that happens.

    Like


    • It’s been said here before (although I don’t think it’s a Maxim, yet)… you need to give her some beta qualities on occasion to keep the hamster out of control.

      Surprise her with a gift, or an out of the blue “I love you so much!”

      This will get her hamster concerned. Internal: “Holy shit, is my guy some beta schlub?”

      Then, return to your cocky and confident demeanor. The hamster can’t handle it and goes a-spinnin out of control.

      Alpha mostly, beta sometimes (as a surprise, never as a response to her shit testing).

      Like


      • on November 4, 2011 at 5:27 pm (R)evoluzione

        Yes, it’s true. It’s somewhat of a dirty secret around there that a bit of beta baits the hamster.

        The cloying beta energy is almost homeopathic in its potency–a few tiny droplets go a long way.

        For most of us recovering from the spell of feminism, there enough beta still oozing extraneously from our pores, there’s no need to purposely amp it up. My observation has been that most guys, even the most natural alphas, and the most alpha-trained players, will still exude just a touch of beta, in a completely authentic way, only for girls they really love.

        Like


      • on November 4, 2011 at 8:59 pm humansocialdynamics

        “Recovering from feminism”, please. So it’s the feminists fault that you’re beta? Okay, yes, patriarchal societies do make it easier for men to pick up women by giving them a model of behaviour where men’s status over women is assured.

        But really? You don’t think your interest in evolution and genetics is enough evidence that you probably have plenty of beta traits, feminism or not? I’m a full-blown nerd when I’m not at work. You ever read the thing about wide faces signalling aggression? Unless you’ve got a jaw like a boat anchor and a voice like James Earl Jones your very body is designed to signal beta.

        There’s only ever room for one true alpha in a traditional society. You don’t need external factors to explain the extreme difficulty inherent in convincing yourself and others that that’s you.

        Like


      • Keep reading the archives. You’re a newbie here and you’re already pontificating.
        You have some interesting pieces of knowledge, but your know-it-all attitude is beta.

        Like


      • on November 5, 2011 at 9:46 pm humansocialdynamics

        I’ve read the archives. Your groupthink concerns me. Don’t be afraid of contrarians, they serve a useful purpose in any community.

        Like


      • on November 6, 2011 at 7:10 am humansocialdynamics

        Actually, what I mean to say was: in person, I’m a lot more alpha than my online persona would lead you to believe. I seem beta because I disagree with your group norms and I write a lot. This is a message board of imaginary people on the internet however, and I’m here for intellectual gratification. I couldn’t give a fuck how I come across to you.

        All due respect.

        Like


      • “There’s only ever room for one true alpha in a traditional society.”

        A poor assumption based on a caricature of traditional cultures. Alpha status is always contextually dependent. The tribal chieftan’s status transcends much, but in certain contexts, even his leadership is subservient to a higher power. (for example, in ceremony, the shaman hols the golden key ) Moreover, alphas are under constant challenge to their status, which again fluctuates with context. It’s not simple, and it’s also not important in the current social milleiu. Confidence and congruence rule the day.

        “You don’t need external factors to explain the extreme difficulty inherent in convincing yourself and others that that’s you.”

        Who said it was difficult? Projection doesn’t help explain natural phenomena–it clouds it.

        If a man is congruent in thought feeling & action–or in the language of game, if he can maintain frame despite social circumstances that challenge his frame, a man can maintain an aura of cool confidence and unflappability. Today, in the flux of 7 billion humans and fluid, chaotic social circumstances, perception is all that matters.

        Like


      • Today, in the flux of 7 billion humans and fluid, chaotic social circumstances, perception is all that matters.

        Well, depends on matters for what purpose.

        For the purpose of inviting a woman to live with you, she may also want to perceive a nice nest. Not just confidence.

        You can get some women to live in love hovels. But not all. Confidence and charm are useful attraction triggers, but the are not the whole of all attraction triggers.

        Like


      • on November 6, 2011 at 7:06 am humansocialdynamics

        Yeah, I’ll take the hit on that one (r)evoluzione. Non-agricultural societies are indeed quite egalitarian. Furthermore, people from non-agricultural genetic backgrounds tend to exhibit a much greater amount of alpha behavior. It’s no surprise that the stereotypically most alpha social group in the US are the descendants of West Africans.

        However, people living in agricultural, highly stratified societies have developed adaptations to signal beta status far more easily. This is both in terms of behavioral biases, and in physical characteristics (high voice, weak jaw, etc). Speciation pressures…

        As for feeling like your alpha, don’t forget the rationalization / unconscious social lying trap. If you had asked me last year if I was alpha, I would have said yes. You ask me this year, now that I’ve learned this stuff, I say “maybe”, even though I know I’m significantly more alpha when I’m not getting into scientific debates on the Internet.

        Just because you feel alpha doesn’t mean your own status-judging module agrees.

        Like


      • I have just read your blog. For such confidence in transgressing “group norms”, you are cultivating the same heel-nipping habit as everyone else of armchair sociology. It is true enough that only natural betas would be so conditioned by feminist narrative that they would have to “overcome” it. But here we are: you and we. I see not a single thing on your blog that I haven’t seen at a dozen other blogs and books by egghead Jewish psychologists. Soften your angle.

        Like


      • A.B,

        You’re looking like a young Bukowski — but without the scars and ginn blossoms.

        You’ve got a lean and hungry look. That’s a good thing.

        Like


      • Ha, I have plenty of scars already and my grill’s pretty messed up.

        Bukowski definitely was a mentor of sorts when I was growing up.

        Like


      • Have you ever said something or asked something and the girl kind of squirms or feels uncomfortable?

        This is where i wonder if I’ve tweaked something…or maybe gone too far with the questioning.

        This happened a few weeks ago when i was teasing a girl about having 4 cats.

        A few weeks later, she was suddenly all warm, super friendly, asking me about my cuff-links.

        I think not acknowledging the awkwardness but rolling is part of this key.

        One she gets over her hamster spinning, it’s like a hoop she’s gone through to being more comfortable?

        Any thoughts?

        Like


      • I’d say the area I’m most beta in is my “white knight” response to a woman’s emotional reaction when I say something aggressive or taken as really condescending — especially the “nice girls” who haven’t been on the cock carousel and show obvious low maintenance needs.

        Thanks to the old articles here about white knighting, etc, I’ve been able to catch myself “showing heart” when I really don’t have to. When I say something, I mean it, and if her face drops or she shows sadness, it’s just as likely to be a shit test as it is to be truthful (and possibly both).

        Now that I can catch myself slipping into nice guy/white knight mode and NOT show any concern, it definitely has increased attention from the women in my life (and not just physical relationship women).

        Even when we think we’re fully confident in ourselves, our upbringing and possibly genetic dispositions betray that truth. Knowing yourself and making yourself stronger in determination is a constant process, it seems.

        Unless you truly are heartless, and that’s not the type of guy I want to become.

        Like


  18. Damn you RL, you beat me to the Dan Gilbert link.

    Like


  19. We are all fucked – destined to believe false things, have competing needs that can’t be satisfied at the same time, forever dealing with tension between our need for autonomy and our need for social structure, and the irreconcilability between satisifying individual desires and maintaining a coercive social structure upon which all freedom is predicated on.

    [Heartiste: Man, now I’m depressed. I need a drink. *gulp* *smack smack* *mmm ahhh* Much better!]

    Like


    • Rationalization also works on MEN too. Especially, married men… with fat wives.

      Like


      • on November 4, 2011 at 9:02 pm humansocialdynamics

        Rationalization is a basic communication skill that we all do subconsciously. The beautiful thing is that because it’s designed to help you lie to other people about how great your life is, you do it all the time without being consciously aware that you’re doing it.

        Like


    • Fucking depressing that was.

      Like


  20. on November 4, 2011 at 3:00 pm beenreadingthearchives

    where’d the archives go?

    Like


  21. KUATO IS MY WINGMAN.

    Like


  22. “You bang feminine foreign girls because you can’t handle an empowered native-English speaking woman”

    Like


  23. Brilliant as to be expected.

    The only thing I can add is a brief warning: If as a man you find yourself agreeing with, commiserating with or *shudder* uttering in earnest any of the phrases on the Chateau rationalization hamster list, you need to take the red pill, you’re trapped in the Matrix.

    If you find any other man doing the same, you know what you’re dealing with.

    Like


    • Agreed.

      But how is it again that men should rationalize their failure to bed hot young 7-9’s? (To be fair, let’s leave the precious 10’s out of the equation)

      Like


      • I don’t know. Is rationalization the opposite of honesty or even introspection?

        My answer is that the failure of men unable to bed the women they desire is a failure in ability to exhibit those traits said desirable women are seeking, consciously or subconsciously, to allow access to her as a mating partner.

        Do you rationalize, do you project your failure onto the woman or do you use the rejection for self improvement? “She’s a bitch anyways if she doesn’t like me for who I am” or “I should eat right, go to the gym and seek knowledge to become a more interesting and desirable me.”

        Like


    • on November 4, 2011 at 5:33 pm (R)evoluzione

      Yes. Rationalizations are a veritable litmus test for the degree to which someone is able apprehend the basic facts and structure of human social dynamics, particularly those of the industrialized world.

      Once the Red pill has been adequately dosed and properly assimilated, rationalizations go away, because we get to own our true feelings and motives, without hiding them beneath a cloak of politically correct dogmatic groupthink. So by definition, these statements will offend the hamster.

      Like


    • on November 4, 2011 at 6:04 pm flyfreshandyoung

      “I don’t like skinny girls”

      “That girl is too dumb, anyway”

      “She’s not *that* hot”

      “I like accomplished women”

      “You just have sex with sluts, I like good girls”

      etc… etc…

      Like


    • @Rollo, question, when a girl flakes on a guy and the guy says: “She flaked because:
      she was scared
      I was too hot for her
      she thinks I’m out of her league

      etc…

      Those are also rationalizations, which I must admit, I also use.

      How would be a more appropriate way to deal with the frustration of a flake?

      To analyze is beta.

      To rationalize is beta.

      I get flaked on, I must say i have a toiugh time coping because I don’t want to accept that: maybe I’d fucked up somewhere in my game, even if I thought it through and felt my game was tight.

      Like


      • on November 5, 2011 at 2:52 am humansocialdynamics

        A girl flaking on you is a shit test. It’s a rather unfortunate shit test, because it’s driven by unconscious instincts that don’t understand that our modern world is too big for you to run into her again. But it’s still a shit test, so the same rules apply.

        How do you win a shit test? Frame control, or to be exact, get out of the frame that she is trying to force you into.

        Flaking says “I’m not interested in you.” You don’t win by telling yourself or her “yes you are”. You don’t win by saying “well I’m not interested in you! Take that beeyatch!” You win by changing the subject. This either means ignoring it and shit testing her, if you’re still in contact, or by finding other girls.

        Remember, you’re not passing shit tests to make other people think you’re alpha. You’re doing it to make your instincts feel alpha.

        Like


  24. “It confirms people’s intuitive sense that leading someone can just make them fall for you more deeply, Laurin says. “If this person is telling me no, but I perceive that as not totally absolute, if I still think I have a shot…”

    It strikes me as equalist hogwash, doubled with classic projection (Laurin is a woman).

    Do men really fall for push-pull game by a woman? I personally hate it.
    I tend to fall for the girls who know how to display their vulnerability. Push-pull is my prerogative.

    [Heartiste: Right. The phenomenon she is describing is mostly a woman thing. It can work to a smaller degree on beta males, but the impact it has on men is not as substantial. This is because most of what attracts men to women is their physical… uh, talent. Also, men have a protective instinct which women do not have so much (unless it’s their children)..]

    Like


    • Ever been dumped? Male mind goes into rationalize mode big time.

      Like


    • on November 4, 2011 at 9:07 pm humansocialdynamics

      Yeah, push-pull working on beta males might trigger some kind of marrying-up instinct for chasing higher status by buying a higher status mate. Alpha men have nothing to gain from a high status girl, preferring one that provides the best possible reproductive opportunities. He will probably take push-pull as a sign of “this girl will be difficult” or even “this girl is hiding something from me”.

      Like


  25. My personal favorite is “game ONLY works on women with low self esteem.”

    Like


    • on November 5, 2011 at 2:17 am humansocialdynamics

      There is some truth to that: good game pulls all women, but shitty game tends to only pull the low-status ones. There’s a lot more people doing game badly than there are doing it well. And also, the ones doing it well usually shut the hell up about it and don’t brag to everyone about their game. Thus, to a casual observer, this statement is correct.

      Like


      • humansuckialdynamics

        good game pulls all women, but shitty game tends to only pull the low-status ones.

        Out of all your profundities, this one is the most novel and groundbreaking. You need to write a book, then launch a forum and go the whole route to conduct seminars – spread your innovative gospel.

        Don’t keep such wisdom all to yourself.

        Like


      • on November 5, 2011 at 9:50 pm humansocialdynamics

        Haha uhh cheers bro

        Like


      • on November 6, 2011 at 1:02 am humansocialdynamics

        But seriously, trying to tool me because you think I write like a beta… We’ve already established that alpha is just a pattern of behaviour that happens to elicit useful reactions from other people. I could easily act alpha around here, but I’m not talented enough to do that and spread my “profundities” at the same time. I’ve chosen function over form.

        You wanna look awesome on some web forum for your imaginary friends, go nuts. Retard.

        Like


  26. Proof is found in abundance amongst hbs. The higher the number – the more frenetic the hamster.

    But, true scientific proof is replicated in the <hb9's fervent denial of even the merest existence of Hamster.

    Authentic – be it.

    Like


  27. I particularily like the last sentence – about the decline in the woman’s SMV. It is made all the worse for the women in that there is no, or at least, a lesser decline in the SMV of the man – partly because men do not tend to get fat or ugly, but also because the man does not define himself (unless he is a gigolo) by his beauty. He was and will remain physicaly stronger and more capable and more mentally intelligent and stable than the woman. The only thing a woman has going for her is her youth and beauty – and even being a female CEO is not going to make you one bit more desirable to a man – what then are you going to spend all that money on?

    Women complain a lot about (their favourite fantasy) Rape, but what upsets them more than male attention, is male indifference. Physical revulsion at an aging beached-whale attempting to force herself on a man – men generally being far too polite to tell a woman to her face why she is not desirable – is something they cannot come to terms with and (as Schopenhauer observed) that change can come about in only a few short months. That is why the male Hamster is far less in evidence.

    Like


  28. on November 4, 2011 at 4:56 pm Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM)

    one that i keep hearing is

    “men haven’t manned up and risen to the demands of the feminist movement”

    lzozoozozlzlz

    hell no we havent. that would require us to accept necorphelia, beastality, and butthex and serctive tapings of butthex without the owmnean’s conthen as good, judeo-christian values zlzoozozozoz while buying strapons for our live-in grilfriend so she coud assockcio us lozozoz

    Like


  29. How this one for hamster spinning, usually proclaimed by SWPL anti-White cunts:

    “Diversity is Strength”

    Like


  30. Once again psychology proves the obvious is true.

    Like


  31. This site is nothing but a rant by males who have been rejected in the past and are bitter about it.

    Like


  32. In the immortal words of Austin Powers, ” Yeah, baby! Yeah!”

    Like


  33. You going to do one of Beta guy’s rationalisations?

    Like


  34. That. is. too. fucking. funny.

    Like


  35. For single guys in the field-

    I just used “the claw” opener at a club and it worked amazingly well. Not only did the 8.5 girl immediately comply with my gesture, after she left she continued to look over at me with a look that I could only describe as a bewildered “this guy is different than all the other guys.” She was with her boyfriend, but the bold move had an effect on her.

    I received only minimal eye contact prior to making the move. She walked by me and I grabbed her right bicep with my right hand, waited about 2 seconds until she stopped and acknowledged my direct eye contact, pulled her slightly towards me and said “who are you” with a flat vocal tonality. She did not jump, pull away or act bitchy in the least. She was actually very friendly and submissive in conversation.

    My conversational followup was pretty weak. I basically played strong silent game. After a while she mentioned that she was with her boyfriend so I cut the convo off and initiated the good bye (“nice talking with you…”). But while standing next to her boyfriend she kept looking at me, not with a lustful or longing look, but with a look like “WHO was that guy?” I don’t think many men have reached out and grabbed her like that, even though she is a solid 8.5.

    Like


  36. Probably one of the best posts on the Chateau so far.

    Men though, also…..have their hamsters

    “I like my job”, “I like my wife just way she is”, etc

    Like


    • on November 5, 2011 at 2:46 am Dr. Van Nostrand

      Men though, also…..have their hamsters

      “I like my job”, “I like my wife just way she is”, etc

      Sure they may say that, but most likely they are putting up a brave front in order to get through the day and men’s hamster has the endurance of 400 pound chain smoker compared to the womans slender and persevering Ethiopian/Kenyan!

      Like


  37. on November 5, 2011 at 2:42 am Dr. Van Nostrand

    “When a rule, a restriction, or a circumstance is fixed and inalterable, our tendency is to act like we are perfectly OK with our lack of choice or station in life. In contrast, when we feel like we have a real shot to change our circumstances, we are less likely to resign ourselves to fate, and less likely to pretend as if we wanted our crappy lot in life all along. ”

    Exactly, beautifully put. However it has to be mentioned that too many people confuse rationalization with “when life gives you lemons” or “play the cards you are dealt” , in the latter ,one ACKNOWLEDGES that what you have to work with is far from ideal but you soldier on and make the best of it.The latter is stoicism and therefore usually found it in men and the former is a brand of fatalism and succcumbing to “destiny” which women are notorious for.

    Like


  38. “I was looking for a one night stand, too.” My favorite!

    Like


  39. You, and a few other blogger, have so thoroughly deconstructed the female mind that I now see females for what they truly are, and no longer the goddesses that I once thought they were. What I find is not pretty, it’s actually very sad. I truly am on the edge of tears. Feminism has mutated them into something grotesque. The stats don’t lie, they are increasingly chronically depressed and unhappy with their lives. It’s so sad.

    Like


    • It is indeed sad.

      But in time, you may learn to revel in the chaos as I have.

      Like


    • on November 6, 2011 at 1:47 am humansocialdynamics

      Feminism didn’t do shit. People are evolved to get theirs. End of story.

      Like


      • Don’t know if my previous comment went through.

        Anyhow, you are an amateur. Missing from your profundities is a single reference to altruism. The omission is due to selection bias. You prefer not to see the overweening mechanisms of altruistic patronage that command our society. It is when a system is re-tooled to suit subordinates that “out to get theirs” fails in its diagnostic utility.

        Feminism did shit. What you mean to say is: “Betas have no excuse for being beta. They would be have-nots under any regime.” And you are right about that, but not in your logical extension to “feminism” — which concerns the behavior of women, not men.

        Like


    • Feminism merely shined a bright light on their souls and they come out wanting. The Ancient World had no illusions regarding the nature of women.

      Like


  40. “I don’t know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They’re more important than sex.”

    Like


  41. what is the claw opener?

    Like


    • on November 5, 2011 at 12:40 pm humansocialdynamics

      It’s where you grab girls as they walk past. Tyler Durden has a video about it on YouTube. Funnest fucking opener ever.

      Like


  42. An additional rationalization that will probably crop toward the end as they approach the end of their lives:

    “There never were any good men”

    This is an extension of the the no-good-men-left rationalization. This variation on it will help them explain away their younger indiscretions and excessive choosiness.

    Like


  43. humansuccialdynamics

    It’s where you grab girls as they walk past. Tyler Durden has a video about it on YouTube.

    Hand, meet
    cookie
    jar

    Like


  44. This virtual organ that all humans have was discovered by brain researcher Michael Gazzaniga, who called it “the interpreter”; I grant that ch’s re-branding of it as “the rationalization hamster” was brilliant writing. (don’t know if ch is the same person as Heartiste, so credit where it’s due)

    As far as why it’s stronger in women than men: it may not be biological, but a happenstance. Were women like this in previous eras?

    Feminism has harmed most women and most men, but OFFICIALLY women have benefited greatly; perhaps the stronger hamster in women is just because of the greater gap between reality and Matrix for them in this time and place.

    Like


    • Gazzaniga is a very brilliant man.

      Why is self-suggestion stronger in women than men? I suggested to a friend that it reduces, as so much else in the psychology of sex, to dimorphism: the weaker the specimen, the greater the need for defenses. Rationalization (for want of a better term) is an extreme forebrain expression of hindbrain vulnerability using terms got from women’s mags and product advertising, written by female members of a certain ethnic group who specialize in reversing morals, as well as developed in a sort of natural discursive momentum in “liberated” urban social interaction where values can be inverted without social consequences, i.e. code enforcement. With the growth of cities and the irrelevance, now the disappearance, of the family, no one in the liberal West can neutralize the spread of this girlish “gotcha” attitudinizing.

      perhaps the stronger hamster in women is just because of the greater gap between reality and Matrix for them in this time and place.

      Oh. Yea. Well said.

      Like


  45. @Brian: It is also closely related to the game maxim to fake it until you make it.

    To have confidence you need to have past successes which itself requires past confidence. So you run in circles in a recursion with no base case. So you need a combination of lie and low entry threshold to get into the circle.

    No matter whether job market, dating, etc.

    Like


  46. We desire the most the things that are out of our reach, but within our grasps.

    Like


  47. on November 5, 2011 at 10:58 pm Goodbye America

    This explains White people’s (non)response to their own genocide.

    Like


  48. Since women are the more biologically valuable sex, they have a lot more ego to lose — and hence to spin into hamsterrific delusion — by being rejected or downgraded to the invisible fringes of the mating market.

    This is fundamentally incorrect. Firstly, women are not the more valuable sex, biologically or otherwise. They are only more valuable within the culture of pussy-worship. Secondly, it’s not a question of ego loss, because surely alphas at the top of the pecking order have big egos, don’t they? The reason that women are more predisposed to hamsterrific delusion is that as the provided-for, pampered sex with the universal, all-purpose pussy-pass, they never have their models of the world tested. Men, as the sex predisposed to competition, survival and taking responsibility for outcomes, are far less predisposed to the spell of the hamster. Men enjoy nothing comparable to the pussy pass, and so they are denied immersion into the sort of self-indulgent fantasy to which women are entitled.

    I see where le Chateau is going wrong. He is assuming genocentrism, and that genes determine behavior. Because he assumes that women’s behavior comes programmed into the genetic blueprint, he assumes that life experiences (being provided for) are quite irrelevant to the cognitive skills that one acquires throughout life. Epigenetics softens that view, but still, the predominant idea even in epigenetics is that genes are the foundation and experience is incidental (impacting on phenotypic plasticity).

    Like


    • on November 6, 2011 at 1:54 am humansocialdynamics

      Duuuuude, read some evolutionary psychology. The brain is evolved to process information using algorithms that generate useful behaviour. Consciousness is evolved to tell bullshit stories about what those algorithms are doing in ways that makes the person look better.

      You start introducing ideas like ego-protection and self-indulgence and epigenetics and you’re gonna tie yourself in knots.

      Modern EP and neuroscience provide some very elegant solutions to a
      lot of this stuff, check out Why Everyone (Else) Is A Hypocrite by Kurzban and Incognito by Eagleman for a better explanation. Seriously. This shit is actually pretty straightforward once you look at it the right way.

      Like


      • The brain is evolved to process information using algorithms that generate useful behaviour. Consciousness is evolved to tell bullshit stories about what those algorithms are doing in ways that makes the person look better.

        Blah, blah, blah. When I read shit like this, I hear it in the old computer voice, followed by a whirr, click, and beep. Are you happy pretending to be a computer? ever seen that episode of Star Trek: TNG where the orphan boy imitates Data to re-orient himself?

        “Ego” is a bad, confusing metaphor, yet “algorithms” isn’t. You’ve never sensed that this is all just intellectual fashion of the moment, have you?

        Feminism didn’t do shit, and “algorithms” is a more serviceable metaphor than “ego”. Ok. What next?

        Seriously. This shit is actually pretty straightforward once you look at it the right way.

        So is ego psychology, and so was nobull’s very eloquent explanation. Which, as yet, you have said nothing to improve. Duuuude, read some old school psychology. Start with Anna Freud’s The Ego and Mechanisms of Defense. You’ll find it fathoms these problems as well as EP. All neuroscience can do is tell us which parts of the brain are implicated in which behavior, which findings are then relayed to neuropharmacologists, who create ways to switch them off.

        Like


    • Damned good comment. No reality-checking, no punishment.

      Like


  49. Go download “The Millionaire Matchmaker,” a show on Bravo. Get as many episodes as you can find, from wherever you can find them. Watch them all. It’s a great insight into women, and into men.

    Look at the rationalization of the first woman in S03E03. Brilliant.

    Like


  50. “Men my age won’t date me? I prefer younger men anyway.”

    If a woman looks so old and bad that men her own age won’t date her, why would an even younger man?

    Like


    • on November 6, 2011 at 2:01 am humansocialdynamics

      Honestly it’s good question, but I’ve seen it happen many many times. Guys don’t seem to make some conscious decision to do it, so it’s probably some evolved instinct. At that point it’s either an adaptation, a byproduct, or random noise.

      Chasing cougars when you’re young and inexperienced could be a byproduct of youthful, fuck anything horniness. Or it’s an adaptation to seek out an experienced woman and learn useful skills from her that can be applied to other women. Or something more complicated. Or it’s just random.

      Like


    • easy poon for young guys trying to get their notch-count up

      Like


    • because younger men are of lower value than older men. seems pretty obvious to me…

      Like


    • Desperation.

      Earth to Jessica, the chicks I’ve fucked in my 40s (and I turn 50 next year) are way hotter than the ones I fucked in my 30s, who were in turn better looking than those I had in my 20s and late teens.

      Most of the guys I know have experienced the same thing.

      Like


      • Something like that, ya.

        Like


      • ugh, im 20 and in college and most of the “nice” girls i know are dating guys who are 30+ (well the ones who are attractive anyway) which means thats all left for me are the sluts. At least im getting laid but having to wait another decade before i can get a girl who isnt bipolar is pretty grim.

        Like


      • Are you the same guy who bangs prostitutes?

        (I am being serious.)

        Like


      • Yes, lots of them. I’m picking one up at 10:15 tonight (though last time she said I’m going to start getting it free) and tagged this one yesterday: http://www.slutload.com/watch/19HK2ozsF4T/Grl-Getting-Tattooed-Then-Taken-to-a-Ranchy-Porn-Theater.html

        But I get hot young chicks free, too. Within the past three years, I’ve had first night anal with two strippers under 25 with no money involved – and I’m not even into anal – they were the ones who wanted it. Some other youngins, too, and I have an ex-stripper that has a live-in boyfriend and loves threesomes in my de facto harem.

        So…

        Oh, and Anonymous, I didn’t say any of them WEREN’T bipolar. I mean, how many chicks in the United States anymore aren’t bi-polar?

        Like


      • Dirk Johanson,

        So I should be offended when younger men ask me out? I ask this question with all seriousness. I’m much more attracted to men 10+ years older than I am, but I’m rarely approached by them. It’s usually men in my own age group and younger who ask me out, and among them a disproportionate amount are 5+ years younger.

        I could understand if I was giving off an easy sex and/or cougar vibe, but I would like to think that I’m not.

        Also, if you are having relationships with younger women than those in your age group, do you think the current ones just seem better than the ones in your past by comparison to the 50+ women?

        Like


      • Jessica,

        I don’t think you should get offended when anyone asks you out. I understand why you might feel that way since I have on occasion felt offended when, for instance, a foul 60-something approached me on sugardaddyforme to be her sugardaddy. But really, they are just complimenting us when they ask us out, so why take offense?

        As far as your other question, I am comparing the younger women today to the way the women who are now older were when they were younger, not to how they are now that they are old. To be fair, women in general have just gotten way hotter since around the mid-90s, once the grunge years passed. I mean, when was the last time you saw a unibrow? And truth be told, I do like the tats and the piercings, so…

        Like


  51. good post, but the end confused me. you seemed to be leading towards a very obvious justification for why the female hamster is so much stronger, but then you screwed up and said something else.

    the reason the female hamster is much stronger is exactly the reason which would be implied by the study… women are stuck with their mating value. it’s directly tied to their physical attributes/youth, which are (mostly) unchangeable. men, on the other hand, are capable of mobility through the pecking order and thus require more self-deception. only the low ranking men who have few options develop this sort of rationalization – in the form of oneitis: “I’m only interested in one woman anyway.”

    Like


  52. Depends what she means by date:
    Remember that a pump and dump/one night stand from an alpha she can never have, counts as a date.
    She is working off the idea that men are only after sex, while she is falls under the classification of moped – fun to ride until your friends see you.

    Like


  53. Not good to lie to yourself and (unconvincingly) to others, but this reaction is not so bad. It makes sure you aren’t, figuratively speaking, struggling in your chains so hard that you only hurt yourself and give yourself terrible pain. Sometimes it’s better to relax and try to remain as content as you can despite your situation, and then either wait for the opportunity to escape, or to wriggle out of the chains carefully. But even in chains, you can learn to live, as they don’t restrict all your movement, and even people with no arms or legs somehow live.
    This hamster definitely exists, I can see how it works. If you were ever stuck in some bad position and managed to get out, you later see how bad it was, but you don’t see it when you’re in the middle of it.

    Like


    • It’s not ego preservation I’m talking about though, but being stuck somewhere bad, and since you gotta survive whatever that’s bothering you, getting used to it can help.

      Like


      • Your hamster’s stretched full like a cheetah bounding over the Serengeti. It is not emphatically not engaged in desperate ego-preservation. No one preserves egos anymore; they accommodate themselves to “chains” and “process algorithms”.

        So far we have come, so far.

        Like


      • I’m not sure what you mean, can you explain?

        Like


      • Ah, I think you just accused me of ego-preservation? (sorry I didn’t get it the first time, too many long words). In what ways am I doing that and how did you manage to detect it? It’s always good to know these things for self-improvement.

        Like


  54. Some of my childhood girlfriends who I have connected with in the future really disappointed me with how little intellect they have gathered over the years, many have regressed badly in so many ways, yet they are championed for being ridiculously foolish at/in every day life. They expect the man to just go along with whatever they want, the mannerisms, and lack of any respect whatsoever towards me (just a man), well lets just say, hell I don’t care anymore as I don’t keep any of these crazy creatures around me for very long at any given time. The only women I’ve enjoyed talking with over the last ten years, are the 80-90 year olds, they are quite respectful of you, and many will advise to avoid today’s women.

    Like


  55. Shine rides again…

    “Why I Cheated on My Husband,” by Woman’s Day, Shine via Yahoo, 25 Oct 2011
    http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/sex/why-i-cheated-on-my-husband-2596381/

    “I was bored and unhappy” and “my husband was a workaholic” are big in there.

    Like


  56. Another one:

    “Women dress for other women, not men.”

    For whatever reason this big lie caught on to the point where I even see men quoting it. Women want other women to see what they’re wearing, true, and want to look more appealing than other women because they are often in direct competition with each other. For who?

    For men. The attention of men. Woman want to look sexy for men because sexiness doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Without men their’s no such thing. This hamster rationalization is there because it takes power out of the hands of men, women are loathe to admit men decide how sexy they are.

    “I want to feel sexy for myself!” No, you want to feel sexy for men. Hopefully the ones you also find attractive.

    Like


    • Sick of seeing myself act the pundit, but I have a thought on this big lie.

      It strikes me as a case of dishonest signaling. That is, they really are dressing to flatter themselves — the teleological purpose of dressing sexy having been denied by popular feminism. They do not even understand that their desire to be sexy arises from their sexuality. Decades of advertising, which has reinforced the idea that looking good is a matter of personal honor and self-worth, not of their value to men, have brought this about most straightforwardly. It basically has shorted the most fundamental equation in human affairs, man + woman = life.

      In the same way, understanding evolutionary psychology is not mate signaling, but a wholly individualistic behavior with a possible fitness gain by its application to a procedural analysis of mating behavior.

      Like


  57. I LOVE IT, TOO TRUE, TOO HILARIOUS AND AMEN!

    Like


  58. Heartiste:

    Let’s not promote foreign women too much any more on this site because the western betas and gammas have gotten the message and now there is too much demand.

    The “mail order bride” agencies have all gone corrupt because the women are just not interested anymore. Via the other social networks, the women know they are in demand so the marriage agencies are just faking it with fake profiles and high fees for fools to pay to chat with agency employees, believing that the women prefer to be protected by an anonymous layer the way western women prefer.

    If we’re going to promote foreign women here, let’s make sure that every western man knows to never pay for anything other than the direct contact information of a woman. Men must never pay for anonymous letter writing and chats. They have to know that this is a scam every time. Non-feminist women will not have a problem with immediately giving out their contact info. If they say they have to get to know a man first, that man is being scammed if the get to know process costs money (unless there’s a general monthly fee like at Match.com where marginal contact doesn’t cost the man anything).

    Like


  59. One side of this issue is really about learned helplessness.

    If you think you just CANNOT prevail in some game, you
    give up and drop out. Then you will rationalize etc.

    This reminds me of the game of the individual vs. the state.
    If you believe that you cannot escape from having about half
    of your output confiscated, and being regulated to death
    as a thank you, you might decide that it is hopeless and
    then decide that you like it, your spirit that you once thought
    indomitable is now broken.

    Thor

    Like


  60. Men being intimidated by careerist women is not unreasonable. At least when we openly admit that’s the case, we’re not rationalising. We just like for there to be balance and for female status not to be out of proportion with our own.

    Like