[la_mode]

Roissy lately has taken this direction of telling men that if you basically act like Stiffler from American pie, women will magically be drawn to you. For as smart as he is - he doesn't realize most men simply cannot pull this off. He calls it "jerkboy charisma". Very similar to David DeAngelo's "cocky funny" routine.

While I agree with a lot of his points, I'm convinced he's of the old-school PUA "set run/sarge" days. He also intentionally downplays looks every chance he can. A tenet of the old-school PUA laws...he prefers the term "maxims".

Maybe Roissy is some sort of code for Ross Jeffries.

[void]

There are sites about game that are like theoretical physics, and there is RVF and other sites focused on application that are like experimental physics. Proof and experiments for the proposed theories/hypothesis. I think both are required, but for the average guy sticking to the application and experiment part is good enough.

[Roosh]

Quote:

I think this is what Roosh means when he says that his Neomasculinity places less importance on the theory of evolution, but I'll wait and see what he has to say about the matter.

I'm prioritizing that article. I'll get it up in June.

It's very long, however. I want to give it proper treatment if I'm going to question a sacred cow.

[badscientist]

Rollo responds: http://therationalmale.com/2015/05/25/ch...ogramming/

[Slim Shady]

(05-25-2015 05:00 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

I think this is what Roosh means when he says that his Neomasculinity places less importance on the theory of evolution, but I'll wait and see what he has to say about the matter.

I'm prioritizing that article. I'll get it up in June.

It's very long, however. I want to give it proper treatment if I'm going to question a sacred cow.

I think we [I] may have overreacted.

I am now getting the feeling that you [and now Cernovich] are referring to evolutionary psych only as a pseudo science, while sticking by hard truths like math and physics.

This is fine with me.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Rollo's response is not so bad and does not look like much beef:

Quote:

As most of my readers know I have a great deal of respect for Roosh and I still do. Nothng is going to change that. I think time will tell what direction his push for Neomasculine philosophy truly goes in. As far as what he’s describing in that “new” doctrine there’s not much I disagree with. I’ll take issue with his anti-evolution, anti-evo psych stance. I’ll take issue with his want for some as yet undefined moralism; and not because I don’t think morality or reverence to a higher power shouldn’t be part of it, but rather because it pollutes and distorts open discourse.

Quote:

There was a time I sat in a behavioral psychology class back in college. Behaviorism appealed to me because it was very nuts & bolts, not at all like the touchy-feely humanist schools of psychology. Behavior is the only reliable proof of motive. It was cause and effect, modify variables, and watch for behavior.

At one point I began to see that women are masters of operant conditioning – they had the natural reward 99% of men want, sex. Men’s behavior could be modified just by the prospect of sex, and they could also be influenced by negative reinforcement and punishment. It was one thing to make these observation, but quite another to express them in the classroom. Many of the more intelligent minds I dealt with then would adamantly refuse to recognize the truths that operant conditioning played. After I thought about it I understood that they were likewise motivated to deny what I thought was right in front of their faces.

Frankly I agree somewhat with Rollo. The current theory of evolution as taught by Darwin has more holes in it than Swiss cheese, but behaviorism is another matter. I have found behavioral economics and even behavioral finance a much better predictor of what is happening in real life than the simplified and ridiculously stupid absolute knowledge economic concepts of for example supply and demand.

You don't even need to call it evo-psych to find most Game concepts being confirmed in what one could just as well call behavioral psychology. Whether those behavioral patterns have evolved in millions of years of human development or not is irrelevant.

Quote:

I disagree with him that the Red Pill will cease to go on. It may be called something else, but it’s been around before he or I started writing about it. The “Red Pill”, like many other terms, is an abstraction; a place holder for an idea. Don’t like the Matrix movie references? Fine, but the truth is the truth and freely expressed ideas need words to describe them.

Maybe Neomasculinity is the prescription you need, but from what I can gather so far it’s a movement based on exclusion; not inclusion, not on a free exchange of ideas. Maybe the christianized Red Pill of Donalgraeme or Dalrock is a better prescription for you. Maybe you need the inspiration of a guy like Victor Pride and a better outlook on your physique.

Or maybe all you need is a truth and an awareness to help you lift yourself up. Yes, Red Pill awareness can be very depressing in the beginning, I’ve written several posts and book chapters dedicated to helping men come to terms with that, but ultimately it will be that awareness that becomes the catalyst for changing his life.

The Red Pill isn’t one size fits all, you have to tailor your own life with what it shows you.

Ah well - not much of a conflict really. Neomasculinity is a concept within the broad range of Red Pill perception.

I still think that guys like Rollo, Heartiste, Roosh, Dalrock all have a broad common ground despite their differences - in my opinion they teach a lore that is surprisingly similar at the core.

[The Beast1]

I find it hilarious we use the term "red pill". The Matrix is nothing more than an elaborate christ story. Christ came down to teach his lessons to the world so people may know the truth about redemption.

And here we are using the term "red pill" to describe the truth about women and a consumerist economy so that not only us but other men can also learn the truth.

[Roosh]

(05-25-2015 05:21 PM)badscientist Wrote:  

Rollo responds: http://therationalmale.com/2015/05/25/ch...ogramming/

He toned it way way down from his Twitter tirade of calling me PT Barnum and a cult leader.

Whether he wants to co-exist or not, I have no motivation to sustain beef with any of the groups/individuals that criticized me over the weekend. I understand that even men can react angrily and then regret it afterwards.

[MMX2010]

(05-25-2015 05:21 PM)badscientist Wrote:  

Rollo responds: http://therationalmale.com/2015/05/25/ch...ogramming/

Rollo's response is ridiculous.

Quote:

Changing Your Programming

I mentioned in the first book that I am not a motivational speaker.

I’m not anyone’s savior and I would rather men be their own self-sustaining solutions to becoming the men they want and need to be – not a Rollo Tomassi success story, but their own success stories.

That said, let me also add that I would not be writing what I do if I thought that biological determinism, circumstance and social conditioning were insurmountable factors in any Man’s life. Men can accomplish great things through acts of will and determination. God willing, they can be masters of those circumstances and most importantly masters of themselves.

With a healthy understanding, respect and awareness of what influences his own condition, a Man can overcome and thrive within the context of them – but he must first be aware of, and accepting of, the conditions in which he operates and maneuvers.

You may not be able to control the actions of others, you may not be able to account for women’s Hypergamy, but you can be prepared for them, you can protect yourself from the consequences of them and you can be ready to make educated decisions of your own based upon that knowledge.

You can unplug.

You can change your programming, and you can live a better life no matter your demographic, age, past regrets or present circumstances.

These are the last words from The Rational Male – Preventive Medicine. I wrote something similar in the first book too, but I’m quoting them here because they are just as important now as they were when I was writing them then. I’m not now nor have I ever been interested in creating a cult of Rollo. I’m not interested in creating better men, I’m interested in those men making themselves better men.

Descriptions and Prescriptions

You’ll have to forgive me, I wrote this part about a year ago, but I think it’s still relevant now. In part 4 of Preventative Medicine a commenter (who, for the record is not an InCel by any stretch) asked me why I had no real prescriptive plan for men to follow with regards to ‘preventing’ or avoiding the bad decisions associated with the time line I laid out in that series. This was my response:


Imagine for a moment I had the temerity to presume that I know exactly what a 60 year old reader experiences in his personal life with a post-menopausal wife. I could take a good stab at it, but anything specific I could prescribe for him would be based on my best-guess speculations and according to how I’ve observed and detailed things in this series or any of my past posts.


From my earliest posts at SoSuave (in 2004) I’ve had men ask me for some ‘medicine’ for their condition; some personalized plan that will work for them. This sentiment is exactly what makes PUA and manosphere ‘self-help’ speakers sell DVDs and seats at seminars. They claim to have the cure. I say that’s bullshit.


I’m not in the business of cures, I’m in the business of diagnoses. Imagine a PUA guru attempting to force fit their plans to accommodate that 60 year old man’s situation. Athol Kay makes attempts to remedy married men’s (non) sex lives, but what’s his real success rate? Is it even measurable? Even Athol recognizes that his MMSL outline is just a map, a diagnosis, that men have to modify for themselves per their individual experience and demographic. You see, your cure, your plan of action isn’t what another man’s will be, or your future son’s, or anyone else reading my work. I can give you a map, but you still have to make your own trail. I’m not a savior, you are your savior


Short version: I’m not interested in making men be better men, I’m interested in men making themselves better Men.

What’s more legitimate, my prescribing some course or template to follow that leads a man to a success that ultimately I define for a reader, or my laying out an accurate landscape for his better understanding and he creates his own success with it?

Are you your success or my success? I’d rather a Man be his own.

tl;dr - He's viewing Roosh's Neomasculinity article as if it were some sort of Holy Edict. You can tell because he's posted on his Twitter account a picture of Scientologist L. Ron Hubbard, with the caption, "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion."

Meanwhile, Roosh's Neomasculinity article is nothing more than a descriptive way that you could live your life. I doubt Roosh will ban me from this site because I didn't experience any positive reactions as a result of using ACV.

Quote:

As most of my readers know I have a great deal of respect for Roosh and I still do. Nothng is going to change that. I think time will tell what direction his push for Neomasculine philosophy truly goes in. As far as what he’s describing in that “new” doctrine there’s not much I disagree with. I’ll take issue with his anti-evolution, anti-evo psych stance. I’ll take issue with his want for some as yet undefined moralism; and not because I don’t think morality or reverence to a higher power shouldn’t be part of it, but rather because it pollutes and distorts open discourse.

I’m not an atheist, anyone who’s read my commentary on Dalrock’s site knows this. That said I don’t think there is a substitute for critical inquiry, and when that is stifled, that’s when we lean over into dogma.

Rollo polluted open discourse with the following dogmatic positions: (1) I have always had an unmoderated comment forum. You want a real conversation? You know where to find it. (2) TRM is zero commercial, no ads, no monetization, no sponsored post. You want real discourse, bring it. I make no money from it.

When Roosh blocked Rollo, Rollo claims, "I only wanted open discourse the entire time!" - then he posts implied comparisons between Roosh and an infamous cult leader.

[Basil Ransom]

"Meanwhile, Roosh's Neomasculinity article is nothing more than a descriptive way that you could live your life."

How is telling men to lift weights not prescriptive?

There is nothing wrong with telling men what to do. When I tell a man what to do, he has full knowledge that he has the free will to disagree with me, and go his own way. I have no power over him. To not tell him what to do, when he has come to me for advice, is to be a sort of nihilist, who thinks no action is better than any other. If Roosh gives advice for a general audience, it's inevitable some of it will be inappropriate for some of his audience. The existence of amputees does not discredit weight lifting. So men will always have to decide for themselves what to adopt.

A personal aversion to offering prescriptions is fine - some people don't want that role. But there's nothing inherently wrong with telling people how to live. That is a calling as old as humanity. So long as we can choose and discard gurus at our own will, there is no problem with gurus offering their prescriptions. To not recognize the value of the role of a teacher is to claim that you are the teacher's equal in knowledge and experience - which again is a sort of nihilism.

[Isaac Jordan]

(05-25-2015 05:00 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

I think this is what Roosh means when he says that his Neomasculinity places less importance on the theory of evolution, but I'll wait and see what he has to say about the matter.

I'm prioritizing that article. I'll get it up in June.

It's very long, however. I want to give it proper treatment if I'm going to question a sacred cow.

I'm quite interested in hearing your stance on this, Roosh, especially given your background in biology.

As an atheist, evolutionary theory/biology/psychology is by far the most parsimonious explanation I've found for the vast majority of human behavior.

One basic assumption-that humans are simply animals-provides an epistemological starting point by which one can reach theoretical conclusions that are firmly backed up by real-world experience.

When we want to understand how an organism works, we look at how it operates in its natural habitat, along with how that habitat (and the species itself) has changed over time.

In applying this methodology to a recently-evolved species of ape (homo sapiens) we find clarity in everything from mating practices (game), to diet and lifestyle (paleo/primal living), to social behaviors like politics (r/K selection) and religion.

A quick scan of your list from the What Is Neomasculinity? post shows that nearly half of the table of contents are directly related to evolutionary theory (especially sexual selection):

Game
Traditional sex roles
The true nature of women
Sexual marketplace value
Testosterone
Nuclear family
Binary sex model
Feminine beauty ideals
Natural health and hygiene

I'm likely putting the cart before the horse, as I of course have no idea what you plan on posting concerning evolution. And I'll admit, there are plenty of people out there who can twist and turn the theory to suit their own ends. But at the end of the day, I would hate to see a promising new ideology like neomasculinity distance itself from evolutionary theory, given that it already underpins (and vigorously supports) much of the ideology itself.

[AnonymousBosch]

(05-25-2015 04:03 PM)la_mode Wrote:  

Roissy lately has taken this direction of telling men that if you basically act like Stiffler from American pie, women will magically be drawn to you. For as smart as he is - he doesn't realize most men simply cannot pull this off. He calls it "jerkboy charisma". Very similar to David DeAngelo's "cocky funny" routine.

If Operant Conditioning Techniques, (such as Positive / Negative Punishment, Shaping, Positive / Negative Reinforcement, Extinction / Reponse Cost of Positive Stimulus Removal), can train people to over-ride evolutionary instinct and act in a manner against their self-interest, and their continued comfort and survival, then what use is EvoPysch as the be all and end all of Game?

From my observation, the last 10 years of social media and the normalisation of the Smart Phone has rewired the Human Mind. Women have become disconnected from the idea of connection, except as a romanticised and idealised phantasm. They dream about finding 'the one', but, realistically, a boyfriend to them is just a complication in the way of the easy-distractions and self-affirmation of the smart phone, as are children.

I'm expecting the next generation of largely-ignored children to respond as would children of alcoholics I've worked with, where they understood they were never as important to the parent as the bottle was. Hell, I suspect the majority of Millennial acting out, (victimhood, need for constant approval, catastrophisation, sexual dysfunction, fear of emotions, fear of losing control of self by having fun, conflict avoidance, addiction to heightened emotional states of chaos and drama, identification with wounded birds), comes from children who knew they were never as important to their mother as her career was, and never mattered to their father, because he wasn't there, or was impotent enough in the relationship to be invisible.

The next generation are either going to become so ferociously-independent as to become more like Generation X, or become even more whiny and victimised.

How does EvoPsych fit into a changing social landscape then, because, I'm telling you now, it's not going to be about being the biggest swinging dick in the room if girls get more positive reinforcement out of shaming celebrities and sports stars rather than dating them. You can blame 'bad game' all you want, but there is a deeper mental change happening.

Matt Forney and I have recognised the Millennial indifference to content creation and how they are largely passive except when reacting to something. Roosh and I have mentioned a transition into Clown Game, as Millennials don't always react positively to too much confidence. (I mentioned in the Texting thread how I pitch my personality below jerk so I can dial it up or down).

A girl looks to her smartphone seeking a distraction because she's incapable of entertaining herself. She's conditioning herself to the entertaining and trivial, away from commitment. If all you can offer a girl in this transitory period of re-normalisation is a telegraphed 'whassap' communication style and constant negging, I believe you'll be irrelevant to women within another seven years.

As traditional female mating desires evolve into something else, you adapt or die. I say this as a guy who was advocating letting my physicality do all the taking and dialing down my intelligence only two years ago on here. Things are changing that quickly.

-----

Further thought:

If Evopsychs think Millennial Girls are drawn to a certain type of badboy alpha due to cocky overconfidence, there's simply too many subtypes of women with greater experience at distracting themselves with male approval at different points in their sexual history.

Say there's three women I notice at a party:

- Blonde cheerleader party girl type, the world is her oyster

- University-educated career type, envies the cheerleader, but knows she's 'smarter' than her

- Blue haired, tattooed, pierced waif, despises the cheerleader, is bored by the career types.

I would operate on these assumptions:

- Jerkboy Charisma coupled with physicality will work on the cheerleader, and work less as she approaches the wall.

- I'd tailor the jerk for the career girl: increased verbosity, more snark, 'you and I are the only ones in the room who would get this'. My physicality would be less of an advantage: she'd be attracted to it, sure, but once I successfully fight off her suspicion that I'm a Dudebro / Dumb Biker.

- The waif is looking for neither. She looks for a bad boy not out of sensing physical or social superiority in her partner, but a desire for a partner that appeals to her narcissistic self construct formed by her psychological issues. As such, she would be seeking a wounded bird to nurse back to health, (criminal, drug dealer, gang member) - my tattoos would be a huge advantage here - or she'd be seeking 'A Beautiful Loser', so they can both be Damaged Together, and the drama thereby would need to be dialled up, and I'd hint at a Dark Past.

As society is transferring power away from Perky Cheerleader to the Blue-Haired, Damaged Waif, I'd expect her desires to become the norm.

What fantasy is hugely-popular with women?

The story of what seems like an Alpha Jerkboy, and whom everyone seems to think is a story about male dominance whilst missing the key attraction to women: he's actually a Wounded Bird the main character nurses back to health.



What fantasy is hugely-popular with Millennial women?



Beautiful losers being damaged together, taken to the romanticised extreme of being cancerous.

MMX2010 and I were discussing this song privately the other day, and now I see a deeper layer of greater clarity behind it: beautiful losers, being damaged together, trying to regain innocence.

Unfortunately, we live in interesting times. Adapt or die.

[alexdagr81]

Delete, wrong thread

[AnonymousBosch]

I was just up at the self-serve checkout at the supermarket, and noticed the magazines whilst waiting.

'Dolly' is the Australian Teenage Girl magazine aimed at the Millennial mindset, and perfectly-illustrates what I was just saying, so I searched online for it.

Interestingly, the final cover was modified for public sale.



At first I thought the 'stylejacking' headline was just trivial fluff, but then I've realised that the final recolouring was interesting: a sort of bright purple / plum / reddish shade, and I just realised where I've seen it before. I can guess who one of their 'favourite bloggers' is, and would buy a copy to confirm, except I don't want anyone mistakenly-thinking I'm a pedo a member of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America.



Of course, before I get accused again of being paranoid, and the same thing in reverse, I'm guessing this is pure co-incidence, and in no way deliberate social engineering by Feminist Media Hags to sell Other Feminist Media Hags as 'cool' and 'edgy' to Young Adults.

[MMX2010]

(05-25-2015 08:18 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Beautiful losers being damaged together, taken to the romanticised extreme of being cancerous.

MMX2010 and I were discussing this song privately the other day, and now I see a deeper layer of greater clarity behind it: beautiful losers, being damaged together, trying to regain innocence.

Unfortunately, we live in interesting times. Adapt or die.

It's funny because I understand what you're saying, and I understand how to game it. They're trying to regain their innocence by sitting around, doing nothing, avoiding introspection, and - above all else - not doing any serious work.

So her first step is to get with this dork.



And it's great because they have such an "emotional connection" - but she knows (although she can't quite verbalize it) that it's oh-so-depressing. Naturally, it's his fault, so she needs his polar opposite - but not too opposite, because who wants to date a hyper-trigging shitlord?

So I come along with minimal agreement on feminism, pro-gay rights, and other shit - but with an emotional aloofness that hints at a really sad childhood. Magically, I have the ability to agree with her political rants and complaints about her boyfriend like 10% of the time - but the other 80% I either ignore it by telling a funny story or shut it down with a raised eyebrow and the question, "Are we here to have a good time, or to sour the mood?" The other 10% of the time, I'm a shitlord.

I'm her guy on the side, until I get bored of her. And so I need an exit strategy, which is among the most fucked-up of exit strategies ever: HAPPINESS.

No, seriously. Something like, "Ever since I changed my diet to a more red-meat based, vitamin supplemented, healthy fats approach, my mood has elevated. You should go on that diet, too." Or, "Ever since I've been reading The Last Psychiatrist, I've learned so much about the excuses I make to prevent myself from succeeding. You should read him, too."

Just the subtle, but repeated hints that I'm happy, she isn't, and she should become happy by following my example will be enough to provoke her, "I don't think this is going to work out..." response.

And it works because acquiring happiness through hard work is the last fucking thing she wants to do.

[AnonymousBosch]

(05-25-2015 09:36 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

And it works because acquiring happiness through hard work is the last fucking thing she wants to do.

Running with this ball:

Why would this passive, self-loathing type want to be in a relationship with a successful, interesting, happy man?

Being the partner of a high value man would create expectations for her of having to raise her value to meet his: of working out; of dieting; of increased public-visibility; of needing to be socially-charming; of triggering that particular Millennial trait of craving positive attention whilst being threatened by the possibility of the potential negative attention that being noticed might bring; of living a more intense life with greater responsibility; and of the intimidating possibility of being taken outside her comfort zone and routine with the unpredictable passions of those who embrace living.

It's easier for her to either just bang and next him; or gather attention via public rejection; convince herself he would have dumped her eventually anyway; and binge watch whatever new Netflix series is out whilst staying single, with no responsibilities to anyone but herself.

There's definitely a new breed of woman who are seemingly-conditioned for self-extinction.

[Kizman]

It's a shame the MRA's and MGTOW guys are dissing Roosh since they aren't our enemies. I remember when I spent a fair bit of time on the MGTOW forums last yr... it's good for reminding you that most westernised females are toxic but that's ALL they say on there.

They don't teach you the self-improvement aspect with fitness,finance,gaming,etc like RVF or RoK does. They get too caught up in their bitterness sometimes and just become too negative.

Hats off to Roosh for standing by what he believes in. Hopefully the Mgtow's and reddit redpillers will understand one day..

   

[badscientist]

(05-25-2015 12:41 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

It somewhat goes back to what I said above. Guys talking about Dark Triad stuff and the like are usually in my mind keyboard jockeys that don't talk to women.

Just to pick up on this point again, here's what heartiste has to say about Dark Triad if anyone was wondering: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/11/...ark-triad/

I'm sure many people here are familiar with the works of IllimitableMan too, who specialises in Machiavellism.

From what I observed, having a general overview of Dark Triad is necessary for many men unplugging because it undoes a lot of the nice guy brainwashing they've been conditioned with over a lifetime in a feminist society (school, media, et al.).

For example: narcissism validates self-love, which is crucial for having any degree of self-awareness; Machiavellism is a very strong framework for achieving power which every person needs in order to feel in control of their lives; finally subclinical psychopathy rationalises some character flaws which helps people feel adequate about their perceived abnormalities.

On the flip side, having read through the other mini-essays on Dark Triad here in this thread after your post, I'm totally seeing why it's becoming a nuisance with guys reading too much into it without being able to dissect the bullshit and just go out to apply it where necessary.

[Giovonny]

People are criticizing Roosh for making money?!?!?

Don't argue with anti-capitalists. If they don't like it, they can move to a more socialist country.

Rollo is criticizing Roosh?!?!?

Rollo is married, thus, he has very limited experience in the playboy lifestyle. He is very good at intellectualizing gender dynamics, but, when it comes to the actual process of getting hot, young, women, he simply doesn't have the experience.

With all criticism, consider the source..

[Libertas]

(05-26-2015 12:40 AM)Kizman Wrote:  

It's a shame the MRA's and MGTOW guys are dissing Roosh since they aren't our enemies. I remember when I spent a fair bit of time on the MGTOW forums last yr... it's good for reminding you that most westernised females are toxic but that's ALL they say on there.

They're not our "enemies" in the sense that we have an overarching common foe, but it again helps to remember that coalitions are unstable. I personally think we're a lot better off being our own force and not worry about what MGTOWs for instance think.

I've coalesced some more thoughts on all of this:

[Comte De St. Germain]

(05-26-2015 03:39 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

(05-26-2015 12:40 AM)Kizman Wrote:  

It's a shame the MRA's and MGTOW guys are dissing Roosh since they aren't our enemies. I remember when I spent a fair bit of time on the MGTOW forums last yr... it's good for reminding you that most westernised females are toxic but that's ALL they say on there.

They're not our "enemies" in the sense that we have an overarching common foe, but it again helps to remember that coalitions are unstable. I personally think we're a lot better off being our own force and not worry about what MGTOWs for instance think.

I've coalesced some more thoughts on all of this:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w...mar/11.htm

What I find funny is even Lenin understood the Red Pill as you put it. All men are not created equal.

[Blaster]

(05-25-2015 04:03 PM)la_mode Wrote:  

Roissy lately has taken this direction of telling men that if you basically act like Stiffler from American pie, women will magically be drawn to you. For as smart as he is - he doesn't realize most men simply cannot pull this off. He calls it "jerkboy charisma". Very similar to David DeAngelo's "cocky funny" routine.

While I agree with a lot of his points, I'm convinced he's of the old-school PUA "set run/sarge" days. He also intentionally downplays looks every chance he can. A tenet of the old-school PUA laws...he prefers the term "maxims".

Maybe Roissy is some sort of code for Ross Jeffries.

On various occasions he's described how a little game can go a long way for the average beta schlump. It's not too hard to parse out more reasonable concepts from his over-the-top humorous presentation.

But in the end he seems rather focused on sticking it to liars, deniers, and hamsters. He'd rather expose ugly truths about sexuality and rub those harsh truths in the face of the people who fear them than help men get laid.

[Blaster]

(05-25-2015 05:00 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

I think this is what Roosh means when he says that his Neomasculinity places less importance on the theory of evolution, but I'll wait and see what he has to say about the matter.

I'm prioritizing that article. I'll get it up in June.

It's very long, however. I want to give it proper treatment if I'm going to question a sacred cow.

Evolutionary Psychology is for mostly scientists. It's about understanding the big picture of human nature, not informing present-day masculinity.

The Theory of Evolution in general is pretty unassailable. I've never seen a direct critique that doesn't either fail at basic scientific understanding or demonstrate ignorance of supporting data and evidence. (Indirect critique, on the other hand, along the lines of "not useful to my day to day life" is another story).

Evolutionary Psychology in particular is useful to scientists as a framework for generating testable hypotheses. That individuals may design some bad experiments is not necessarily a fault of the framework itself.

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

I've been thinking about the topic of evo-psych myself lately. I do think evo-psych offers good explanations for a lot of human behavior, sex-oriented and otherwise. I think our genes drive us to reproduce, and a lot of behavior that we think was chosen rationally is really just driven by our subconscious lizard brain to fulfill our primal drives.

However, this best describes the behavior of men and women in the mythical state of nature. In reality, humans live in communities, and our behaviors are strongly modified by cultural standards. Furthermore, we have the power of reason. We can rationally overcome the instinctual drives of our flesh, and choose to do that which reason tells us is best.

The rise of western civilization is based upon a set of cultural standards that restricted human behavior, and is based upon the idea of men as rational beings. Therefore, while we can say that men have the drive to spread our seed far and wide, and women have the hypergamous drive for alpha fux / beta bux, the reality is that we humans can overcome our base urges and do what is right and good for our families and communities.

It is a common thing for people to say "Insanity is doing the same thing over again, and expecting different results". However, I think this definition is wrong. A far better definition is given here: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/diagnose.htm. Insanity is that behavior that fails to contribute to the growth and success of your community, society, and culture. In past generations, parents would disown their children for failing to behave in a way that contributes to society. The entire culture, from the elite to the common working class culture, promoted behavior that contributed to the growth of society.

Nowadays, all the social justice warriors aggressively promote the acceptance of behavior that does not contribute to the growth of society and the positive upbringing of the next generation. Instead, the government is bankrupting future generations. Children are raised in single family homes, to grow up as dysfunctional adults. Every form of perversion is encouraged. Healthy marriage, family formation, and self-discipline are not only penalized by the government, but actively scorned by the media.

The end result of the current trends will be a generation of people who no longer has any cultural restraints on their behavior, who actively disbelieves in reason as "mansplaining", and general insanity.

So, based on this analysis, I agree that there are significant limits to the usefulness of evo-psych. The real solution for a successful culture and society is for individuals to control themselves according to values that contribute to the growth of society.

I suppose in one sense, I could be called a neo-traditional for thinking we need to somehow re-establish cultural restraints on normal human behavior to restore sanity in our society. However, I think Roosh's definition of neomasculinity is a better prescription for us as men. On the one hand, it contains a philosophical explanation of how society and human behavior works. On the other hand, it points out the problems with current society, and the limited potential for turning things around at this point. On the gripping hand, it suggests a course of action for us as individual men, to try to create a bubble of sanity around ourselves, as we cope with this insane world.

[Private Man]

(05-26-2015 05:27 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

Evolutionary Psychology in particular is useful to scientists as a framework for generating testable hypotheses. That individuals may design some bad experiments is not necessarily a fault of the framework itself.

I absolutely agree with this.

Having a solid logical framework (not ideology) to describe and predict human behavior vis a vis attraction between the sexes is intellectually very useful.

There are no scientific panaceas when researching human behavior but there are certainly frameworks - whether biological or psychological - that can be applied.

I'm looking forward to Roosh's essay on this subject.