Ahh, I’ve heard of a cognitive effect like this.

ChatGPT calls it the False Consensus Effect, or Projection Bias.

In short, it’s the cognitive bias that other people think the same way that you do, or that other people want the same things you do.

In the case that @polishknight is writing about, it’s women believing that since they want “economically attractive” men, men should want economically attractive women, not understanding that men want physically attractive women. Coupled with feminist beliefs and the shaming of men for having physical preference, it’s a common cognitive bias that women have reinforced by society.

Men have a similar bias as well. Posting a dating profile of only shirtless photos, or sending girls dicks pics rarely works. But men try these things because they like when girls share topless pics or sext them. Another example is men thinking cars are cool, and expecting women to like their car, and by extension, the man. In reality, you get more car compliments from other men, and women mostly only care about a man’s car as much as it signals wealth/poverty.

Scott Adam’s Dilbert summed it up nicely:

https://archive.ph/KMyOr

Also this WAATGM post on that comic:

https://www.forums.red/p/whereareallthegoodmen/324969/the_paradox_of_strong_and_independent_women_s_hypergamy_summ

The fundamental flaw of successful, hypergamous women is that they want to appeal above other women due to her being the most successful (and masculine) of women but yet, not MORE masculine than the man she desires.

They often rationalize this by saying that a highly educated/successful man won’t want some Applebee’s waitress (they often refer to that chain for some reason) and value her success by his own standards, but yet he shouldn’t want a woman whose more successful than he is because that’s somehow TOO masculine for him?

For the record, Applebee’s catches a lot of hate but ReviewBrah says their chicken sandwich combos are actually quite good: https://youtu.be/uJ3EmZfe6_0

So the challenge is this: They want a man whose in demand from nearly every other woman (including the waitress!) but yet he will pick her because she’s successful enough to be “compatible” with him, but of course not TOO successful (than him) because that’s “icky”.

But wait, that’s not all!

You also get that in addition to their base hypergamy, they view themselves as Boss Babes entitled to what successful men enjoy: The ability to start ‘settling’ down in their 30’s with hot members of the opposite sex. Aging successful men often have hot looking girls on his arm so why shouldn’t an aging Boss Babe also be entitled to a hot guy?

Well, the problem with that is that the guys who are hot AND successful may have choices of their own including that, due to feminism’s success, there are far more aging single Boss Babes around than Successful men available particularly the hot ones.

Successful, and hot, men simply have a plethora of more categorical choices as well as quantity.

But these women see things in terms of the outliers as well as historicals. Back in 1990 when my brother got married, he was the last of a baby boom supply of well-to-do educated men with a relative shortage of up-and-coming Gen-X women just starting to graduate from college to marry. This system used to work, for perhaps 2 decades or so.

I write this article because I want to explain historically what happened. Some readers here in their 20’s may not be aware of all this. They may think to themselves “This is so messed up! Who could imagine this insanity would ever work?” but in some ways, in a limited capacity, it did.

I’m reminded of Las Vegas. A nice young Slavic teenager couple working as pool lifeguards wanted to see America and go to Vegas. They perhaps had heard of the bottomless buffets for $20, free drinks on the casino floor, all the comps and coupons, and so on. I have fond memories of Old Vegas back in the 1990’s and when I got married at ElvisChapel in 2024. It really was like that and what a blast! When I went in the 90’s, I found a mom-and-pop hotel just behind the police station that charged $18/night for a clean but spartan room with a tiny lobby with a few slot machines and a little pool.

Now? I’ve watched this channel from time-to-time, Not Leaving Las Vegas as this guy documents the downfall of private equity firm Vichi Properties bought up the strip lock, stock, and barrel and are raising prices through the roof to milk the place until it’s dry and collapses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBWFgQeift0

The nice teenage couple kept saying they wanted to go there and I told them it was too late. It’s gone. These women don’t realize their time has passed or at least the economics of what had worked for a brief time has.

That being said, the analogy to Vegas invites the analogy that, sure, there are people who go to Vegas, pay $15 for glass of beer on the casino floor, and walk over to the roulette table and making a killing and pay off their student loans. I’m sure it does happen. Look at Bezos and what he fell for after having given away 1/2 of his net worth to his ex wife! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_S%C3%A1nchez_Bezos

But that’s like investing in Mega Millions Lottery tickets…

You have something here but I am not sure it is only what the title suggests.

Having to work for it invests people more in attraction (this is scientific fact) and in that respect some fights in the early stages (while the desire is still fierce) may imprint a man harder on a woman but it has to be while the desire is fresh and the desire must be strong enough to overcome the negativity..

Women do tend to remember all the negatives strongly and when the heated rush is over, these memories will still be on the hard drive, so I would still advise that it is ideal if she has to work for it in non confrontational ways -like availability, like keeping you interested, trying to lock you down and so on.

It is also true that women will try harder for a guy they really want, who will know his value is above them and may be harder to get. An ordinary guy acting like this will just piss her off. Its important to see it from the right end of the telescope. Its not necessarily because its a great strategy for him, its because she can't let him go.

Because Chad can, doesn't mean you should (or Chad should either necessarily if he actually wants her as a mother to his children). I think this is something a lot of red pill men see form the wrong side. Can get away with and should ideally do are not the same thing.

But yeah, I still think there is something there with those caveats.

Been thinking about this and wanted some input from guys with more experience.

On one hand, I get that being grounded, emotionally controlled, and not getting pulled into arguments is the ideal. No unnecessary drama, no reacting, just staying solid.

But I’ve noticed something that seems contradictory.

A lot of girls seem to remember their more “toxic” exes way more vividly, the guys where there was tension, arguments, emotional spikes, etc. (They got alpha widowed)

Meanwhile, the stable, calm relationships where the guy was always composed don’t seem to leave the same imprint.

Is it actually better (from an attraction standpoint) to have occasional conflicts / tension with a woman, as long as you’re still in control?

Or is that just misinterpreting things, and the real answer is still to avoid fights completely and maintain frame at all times?