Real life advice from female....

[ZenRaiden]

Shes pretty good, a little too preachy in some videos, but this vid is spot on imho.
Its very simple. She gives advice for nice guys.

 

[Hadoblado]

Can you give some sort of summary or sign of engagement with the video you link? This is a board for discussion...

 

[EndogenousRebel]

In general if you live a life where you are committed to responsibilities. Ie: you have a life in general, where you have social relations, Id be shocked if you didn't have anyone to date.

If you are intolerant of being single that is. Social relationships, relative to the individual, a high or low cost to said individual.

We have had many an epidemic of isolation, kind of due to a pandemic, kind of due to technology absorbing a significant amount of people's attention, at the expense of in person social skills.

The above written is the starting point for such a conversation.

This woman is appealing to narratives, and 6 minutes in is doing wonder for it's targets audience egos.

Confidence is what she's selling?

When people actually need, like, exposure?

Gonna resist elaborating because I'm basically just saying it's not about the times you score, it's all about not regretting the shots you don't score.

 

[Cognisant]

Can't watch the video right now because I'm at work but Jordan Peterson has a speech on the importance of responsibility.

Makes sense to me, beyond superficial appeal the most important trait a man can have is the ability to be responsible. What good is a man who just gets a woman knocked up and fucks off?

He needs to take responsibility, to protect and provide for both the mother and child.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Shes pretty good, a little too preachy in some videos, but this vid is spot on imho.
Its very simple. She gives advice for nice guys.

 

[dr froyd]

niceguy-ness is what in evolutionary-biology terms you would call cheap signaling. In fact it's arguably the cheapest signaling strategy there is; literally anyone can do it. That is why it cannot signal any value, and thus cannot generate any attraction.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think she actually uses the term nice guy in its original meaning here, where nice means you really are a nice person, not just signaling virtue to get into panties.

 

[Hadoblado]

If that's the case how does her video help? If you're already a nice guy she doesn't need to convince you to be a nice guy.

IMO being nice just means not being disqualified by self-respecting people. It puts you in the top 80%ish which isn't nothing, but isn't that great either. It's necessary but far from sufficient. You need to be able to connect on some level too, which is more important. The irony of redpill is that it often sabotages men's ability to connect to women by devaluing women as people.

 

[dr froyd]

I think she actually uses the term nice guy in its original meaning here, where nice means you really are a nice person, not just signaling virtue to get into panties.

well, not to sound like andre tate and similar purveyors or dumbed-down masculinity, but when she was talking about how all those cool tall rich guys are ostensibly incapable of connecting with women etc, the thought that popped into my mind was; has she ever considered that perhaps, they are not connecting with her because they are not interested in spending time and energy on such things?

one needs to keep something in mind; the biologically optimal reproductive strategy for a male is to have seggs with as many women as possible - preferably a different woman every day. This implies that a "deeper connection" with a woman must be some sort of tradeoff - where you trade your time and energy for access to the woman due to lacking qualities/resources in other respects.

 

[dr froyd]

btw there's only been 1 time ive heard something interesting from a female on the topic of men, and it was this:

 

[ZenRaiden]

one needs to keep something in mind; the biologically optimal reproductive strategy for a male is to have seggs with as many women as possible

I want sex just as much as the next guy, but calling it biologically successful is a stretch on any level whether we consider the paleolithic or 21 century lol.

And no I don't look for family I am looking for sex and relationship.

I am not sure if broken tateology is really way to explain anything other than male fantasy of x projected onto some biological textbook canvas.

I honestly think people should be smarter than a biology text book.

 

[dr froyd]

so what's biologically successful then - having deep and meaningful conversations with women? Even the woman doesn't care about that on a genetic level - that's just a means to an end - survival and replication of genes.

im not some wizard of the muffin, but i've tested quite a few different theories in practice over the years. Seen a lot of proof of what works and doesn't work. A lot of it has certain cynical conclusions, but that's science - reality is what it is. It cannot always be like a hollywood movie (where the niceguy always gets the girl in the end)

 

[dr froyd]

important lessons

 

[ZenRaiden]

so what's biologically successful then

Obviously having lots of kids can be biologically successful, but youd also have to forgo all the advantages of functional social being that a child needs to be.
I hope I don't need to spell out why having a kid and not taking care of it does not always translate to successful. Obviously there is certain callous nature to passing on genes, that has its function. If we are going to be that level of cynical then we might strip a lot of human behaviors off and go into weird territory.

btw there's only been 1 time ive heard something interesting from a female on the topic of men, and it was this:

The girl literally said that attraction is there. I am not attracted to these types of galls tho. I am sure they are out there. I am not going to get angry just to show here what a man I am. Too old and too much easy going for that.
Seems also like she has daddy issues.

Whats more the video I posted literally talks about tapping into the chad body archetype. I think I should have taken the time out of the day to spell it out, cause you guys have to comment on something before you see it.

Literally what the lady talks about is that nice guys have the nice guy thing going for them, and hence they should not try so hard, but tap into their bodies and be more present in the body rather than philosophical. I think shes just talking about healthy self awareness, and body awareness and sex appeal that nice guys don't have, but chads have. Ergo shes saying be a nice guy plus chad, and then you win.

 

[dr froyd]

Obviously having lots of kids can be biologically successful, but youd also have to forgo all the advantages of functional social being that a child needs to be.
I hope I don't need to spell out why having a kid and not taking care of it does not always translate to successful.

that's an obvious point, which has counterarguments. In the prehistoric past there were no nuclear families, no single moms living in state-subsidized housing projects. There were tribes, so you would probably spend almost as much time raising your own kid as your neighbors'.

yes there have always been a tradeoff between the number of offspring and quality of rearing, but that tradeoff was probably much less punishing than it is in modern society.

you would see this if you lined up all your ancestors - you have way more mothers than fathers (this has been shown in genetic studies). That means you are the descendant of males who tried to maximize the number of offspring.

 

[ZenRaiden]

There were tribes, so you would probably spend almost as much time raising your own kid as your neighbors'.

That is said to be so based on conjecture. As of now the only real life examples we have about tribal life is stone age tribes. Do these researchers even know how people lived 40 or 100 thousand years ago? NO they do not. Secondly tribal dynamics or the dynamics of groups depend on adaptations and resources they have. Eskimos don't have same family structure as Papua New Guinea people. Third their survival would also be different. As for maximizing DNA being passed on I want to see data on this, not just guess work. We can infer all kinds of things, but its not clear what is deemed successful.

that's an obvious point, which has counterarguments. In the prehistoric past there were no nuclear families, no single moms living in state-subsidized housing projects

There were no nuclear families is something we need data for, and nuclear families is also trivial term to begin with. Maybe there were such families, maybe there were tribes and clans and what ever, but that does not mean it was good strategy. That is merely fantasy that was not demonstrated. You need to show assertions not just make claims.

yes there have always been a tradeoff between the number of offspring and quality of rearing, but that tradeoff was probably much less punishing than it is in modern society.

How could we know. We don't live in medieval times either. Also too many variables, to know what is best strategy today. I don't think treating humans as locust is necessarily a great idea, but even if we do, its only because there are systems put in place to take care of orphans and weak.

you would see this if you lined up all your ancestors - you have way more mothers than fathers (this has been shown in genetic studies). That means you are the descendant of males who tried to maximize the number of offspring.

I ain't saying having more kids and having more women is necessary bad strategy, but one needs to show some argument for this. Why are we entertaining this line of thinking other than male sex drive. We aren't necessary even making sense here, because Andrew Tates are clear outliers not the norm, how are they proving evolution favors the pump and dump people, if most people today just don't do that.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Women read books to goon.

Book are just narratives that are built off actions of characters. The plot.

Women can be turned on by the mere notion of an imaginary man that does imaginary actions.

Sure, these books lean into fantasies of women, but so does pornography for men.

What are the odds that men's fantasies from porn come true? Not that high. The same is true for women, despite what people think about how easy it is for them to get a partner.

On the idea that men are evolutionarily wired to spread their genes, I guess you could also argue that we are also evolutionarily wired to become addicted to methamphetamine.

I mean you might as well believe one if you believe the other. You can very much make arguments that humans compared to many other animals are a pair bonding species, and oxytocin is a compound that we do love because we are wired to love, and is present in only intimate relationships.

This means that there is a vital aspect of intimate relationships, that would be absent if someone were to just seek shallow relationships and slept around all the time.

I mean I guess you can have a couple girlfriends, maybe that would make you more satisfied than having one. But if you're banging a different woman every day, you probably live in an environment where evolution via selective pressure isn't the main authority.

 

[dr froyd]

I ain't saying having more kids and having more women is necessary bad strategy, but one needs to show some argument for this.

pretty sure i have show an argument? im surprised this is even supposedly controversial, i thought these were well-known facts.

i don't intend to conduct an evolutionary-biology 101 course in this thread

 

[ZenRaiden]

pretty sure i have show an argument?

Sure so there seems to be more females to males ratio.
From that you argued that men have higher success rate having more sex.
------ which is what you claim?

 

[dr froyd]

pretty sure i have show an argument?

Sure so there seems to be more females to males ratio.
From that you argued that men have higher success rate having more sex.
------ which is what you claim?

look you're arguing against a very basic biological fact

if a man fucks 100 women in one week, he gets 100 children
if a woman fucks 100 men in one week, she gets 1 child

so the reproductive fitness of a male is very much connected to simply the number of mates.

 

[ZenRaiden]

so the reproductive fitness of a male is very much connected to simply the number of mates.

I mean if you believe that then that is fine.
I am just here trying to separate male masculine LARPing and actual fact.

 

[dr froyd]

so the reproductive fitness of a male is very much connected to simply the number of mates.

I mean if you believe that then that is fine.
I am just here trying to separate male masculine LARPing and actual fact.

im not saying this is how every man should live his life, i just think that if one is looking for solutions in these things one needs to accept certain realities of human biology and sexual dynamics. I'm not even sure what alternative im supposedly arguing against - "tapping into one's body"? what does that even mean

 

[ZenRaiden]

im not saying this is how every man should live his life

I know, I get it, I don't think you are that type of person.

, i just think that if one is looking for solutions in these things one needs to accept certain realities of human biology and sexual dynamics

Biological is flimsy concept to begin with, I suggest watching the other half of video that woman did in manosphere where she went over some very obvious concepts that were wrong. More importantly the science of biology is probably not as "sciency" as we like to think. 3 variables in physics vs 245 variables in biology, makes for very confusing science. Our modern science usually knows how to deal with few variables it gets hard core when its 4 or more.

Also you might be right in some cases. There was case of Ottoman Turks who during invasion of Eastern Europe had harems and many wifes while man were in short supply, but it was highly marshal society.

I am honestly open to biological arguments, but I don't like dumb ideas about biology based on extreme generalization that is not applicable in real life. Also I want to further think about your argument, because there is certainly some truth to it, its just not healthy to make it out to be sole truth with one only explanation.

I'm not even sure what alternative im supposedly arguing against - "tapping into one's body"? what does that even mean

Tapping into body, being present. Its not something that can be explained. Its something you learn by practice. I learned to do it and its hard. Especially for cerebral people who treat their bodies like appendages.