@Chaddeus_Rex Also,if this lifestyle of plate spinning, and not believing in 'the one' and keeping dread and blah blah is the way to be...that's all the red pill successful strategy....why doesn't Rollo live it?

Doesn't lift...looks like a woman, and behaves very effeminate unless he's posturing for a video shoot or convention...doesn't dread...doesn't spin plates...doesn't do any of it.

So I'm going to take advice from a guy on how to live, who doesn't do any of it himself? Who just sits back and makes observations and patterns? Is it a wonder why, in following him, a majority of the manosphere are mental masturbators?

Carl Jung, Carl Rogers, Maslow and many other psychologists have said the most important thing in any therapeutic, leader/follower, guide/guided style relationship is the relationship you have to the 'teacher'. Subconsciously we see them as the example of what to be.

I personally have no interest in Rolllo Tomassi when it comes to women, masculinity or being a man because the medium tells me the message.

@Chaddeus_Rex

Where were you two or three weeks ago when I was guy challenging Rollo as a fraud and copping it from left and right?

I was saying the exact same things. I see Rollo as a guy who read and wrote on Sosuave for a long time. He was putting patterns together from stories from losers who couldn't work anything out.

He wasn't out in the field dating an array of women and getting a real-world evidence base.

Then he's using evolutionary psychology in order to construct sexual strategy. To me, that's flawed. Usually when you try to reduce human behaviour down to scientism it's very difficult to use that to construct 'behavioural change, and growth in people.

Science and evo psyche has already been challenged in lots of fields which tried to use it as an attempt to study how humans should approach 'best ways to behave' in varying contexts.

What I mean with that, is look at 'trait theory and behaviourism' in studies of leadership. Back somewhere between 1900 to 1950 they were trying to understand what made leaders leaders, and what would be most effective in producing them.

They used 'trait theory'. Similar to evo psyche, it's a reductionist method trying to simply reduce things down to a collection of absolute traits which make people effective leaders. Then you create surveys and tests to best select for those traits. All very science minded and reductionist.

Psychology and therapy did similar, trying to reduce people down and find 'scientific' methods to treat them. Evo psyche tried to use Dawin's theories of evolution and biology to reduce people down to their basic biological functioning in order to understand their psychology. Much like red pill does. Evo psyche also said people will ALWAYS behave in certain societal laws, because of biology, etc.

Then humanistics came along, with guys like Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. Humanistics influenced many fields related to people, behaviour and psychology.

Humanistics said people are whole humans, and much larger than their individual parts. Although we have biological functions, they aren't the sole reason we act, feel, think and live as we do. It argued that there may appear to be societal laws, but at any point a human is capable of acting totally different to those laws and their past.

In terms of leadership, it threw trait theory out the window because it argues there are so many other factors involved, varying situations and different sorts of leadership.

Basically, humanistics said we need to be expansive and stop reducing humans down to science and evolution.

This is the major problem I have with Rollo. Evolutionary psychology. The supposition that women like 'Alpha Males', because that was in the past, and certain events and circumstances in the past meant women needed certain men, so those instincts are naturally selected and retained....so basically here are a bunch of behaviours which make you 'alpha'....and here is a breakdown of women according to evolution.

It's so reductionist, and you can end up with guys trying to mimic or enact science, instead of being whole humans.

I see these schools of scientism, reductionsim and evo psyche permeate ASKtrp. 'What do I do, say....in order to make her do ***'.

I see Rollo analyse movies and photos like a scientist .

I'm not quite sure how to put it into words. But it all feels so artificial, empty and sterile.

I argue that if you want to become an attractive, fulfilled, fully functioning male, you need to throw away scripts, and mentalities and 'hold frame', and do x to cause reaction y.

You need to be holistic, because humans are holistic. Guys like Abraham Maslow and humanistic psychologists thought to have true wholeness and function, meaning and purpose we needed to be engaged in intellectual pursuit, which harnesses our critical thinking and logical ability which is empowering. We have an innate desire for spirituality and some sort of spiritual pursuit. We need connection with community and feel like we can offer something. We need to be pursuing mastery in something.

It's those sorts of things which connect us to an interacting holistic system of things which bring out our best, make us feel alive, growth and toward self-actualizing. We grow more and more in our organic and authentic expression of ourselves. We become attractive.

I had a huge argument with Skepp and discussion with Menorpheus about how I believe Red Pill is just creating script needing 'actionable advice' 1/4 humans.

Even women are humans. Who would have thought. They aren't JUST a collection of biological buttons from evolution. Sure, that is part of it, like men, but I know for damn sure you can't explain me just through biology.

That's why I enjoy Lacan, who looks at how women are influenced by society, how they don't see a consistent symbol of womanhood and how that affects their subconscious. How they are really striving for an identity but don't really know what that is.

Evola's 'Metaphysics of Sex' argues against evolution and biology as a theory.

The thing is, most other author's get pushed down because people ask me 'mur, what's your actionable advice'? I'm like 'stop looking for a robot script, READ AND PROCESS and apply the knowledge.

BUT...it's the internet. It is literally a majority of men who don't know how to communicate organically. They come together and trade scripts and cliches, which nobody really understand but they repeat because it gives them meaning in a world which doesn't make sense to them.

So, I don't seek to change that, but instead break away and keep pursuing what other things.

But I agree, it's not universal truths in Red Pill. It's truths taken from patterns seen on the internet, and turned into universal truths through using evo psyche. That's what scientism does, reduces things down to what we then think are universal truths.

But scientism and reductionism doesn't account for the world of nuance, and humanism.

Yes, I believe at the core women are attracted to similar things. The expression of those things in men can be very different (nuance),and those men could lead very different lives to each other.

When in doubt, there is a few things in red pill I fall back on. But those things are far less than all the things Red Pill explains as '101', and those things are also needed few and far between.

What happens admist that is full of nuance, individuality and much more.

@INNASKILLZ2K20

Wanna know whats funny about Rollo? Hes an old guy out of the dating market for years, writing abstractions about it and somehow the community takes his word for gospel.

Also, he doesnt lift (breaking one of TRPs core rules) and LARPs masculinity.

Next, Rollo constantly writes abt "muh hypergamee", and any guy who is familiar with conceptions of traditional masculinity or reads "good literature" is familiar with the concept that women judge men on their deeds and love them for their deeds/ability. What is "good literature"? It is literature that examines or reveals a universal truth about human behavior - it is in essence a form of philosophy examining the human condition rather than universal truths about the world. In fact, I'd argue that writers like Jack London, Ernest Hemingway, Sir Walter Scott, Fenymore Cooper demonstrate a greater understanding of masculinity and femininity, of men and the women who love them. How can we be certain that these authors who write "good literature" actually know what they are talking about and Rollo doesnt? Surely society has changed and our modern reality is different from their time? If this was true, and Rollo's ideas were true, why then do similar themes arise in different authors spaced 2000 years apart, in different geographical regions and belonging to different cultures? Surely wise men over the centuries would have noticed these differences and would have written about them - but they have not. For example, Plato speaks about Alecstis who is willing to sacrifice her life for her beloved when no one else would, so that he would live. Or what about Jack Londons "The Wonder of Women" where he talks about a White explorer/adventurer getting captured by a native tribe and forcing him to live with them, and the chiefs beautiful daughter helping him escape at the cost of her own life. Some could say, "this is fiction, and therefore has no bearing on reality" - but then how does one account for the same themes arising in different authors, thousands of kms apart, thousands of years apart? Plus "good literature" examines stories that the author has heard, or the actions of people he met. "Good literature" although fiction is a microcosm of society and examines ideas about it.

Rollos ideas often have no basis in reality and if they do, do not examine universal truths.

Next, how can we be sure Rollo's advice is sound? He doesnt lift (which is evident by his physique), he is not in the dating market like most of us here, he is not masculine according to any measure (look how he acts when pressed or how he participates in the 21 cuckvention). So qsking dating advice from Rollo, is lack asking a fat doctor weight loss advice - if he can't stop stuffing his face with doughnuts and show results - then what is his advice really worth?

@INNASKILLZ2K20

For a long time I heard "you are trying too hard". I did not know what "trying too hard" meant, but with time I have come up with a definition that I hope helps:

Trying too hard = putting in more effort than is socially acceptable

But if this is taken to extreme and one puts in NO effort, then no results can be expected even from women that like you because they will be certain you dont like them back.

What is the solution? How to not try too hard but put in enough effort to get more results? Approach girls on the street but slow down your speech and movements, when trying to go to a new location offer them to come with and disqualify yourself at the same time (i wanna go grab some food, i'd like it if you came with but if you dont wanna go its okay too).

@Chaddeus_Rex

Absolutely. I was there. I wrote a detailed post on here a few days ago about it.

I understand some of the extremes. Sometimes guys who are utterly blue need extremes to cause a real cognitive intervention. A mental snap to break the extremity of deeply held blue behaviours and beliefs.

But then, some of it is just stupid. The 80/20 rule being one. We all know and observe that it isn't the case. Not in the usual red-pill way, anyway.

Most guys will follow blindly, though. They can't critically think, and as you say are normies. They try to make their observations FIT into the Red Pill cliches. Or they can't make observations at all and follow blindly. Or, they lack intellect and logic to critique when Red Pill pulls from things like 'Pareto's Law' to look intellectually sound, and challenge them that they aren't using these intellectual maxims properly.

The rest of us have a little more intuition and eventually challenge it and merge with a better understanding of our real-life observations.

Going down another track a little, this is where I find pursuing things OUTSIDE OF RED PILL:WOMEN, like reading, studies, mastery in my life purpose is so beneficial.

It drew my head away from all the cliches and maxims, to a point where I was like 'I don't really give a shit about that stuff, my head is other stuff'.

The result? I was putting in 20% of my old effort with women, and getting 80% of the results.

This has been a good discussion because I've discovered a new way to apply Pareto which is beneficial and makes a lot more sense.

And once again, Rollo can fuck off with how he applies things.

@INNASKILLZ2K20

Guys calling it a 'law' and using it as an absolute are stuck in trying to apply absolutes where they don't exist.

Agreed. The problem is they are normies incapable of understanding nuance. And nuance is crucial to interpersonal interactions. Of course nuance is far harder to learn and has a longer pain period, it is much easier to use slogans - 20% guys, fuck 80% of girls.

There is a reason that political/religious movements use slogans - because they are easy to remember and to repeat - Deus Vult/Allahu Akbar/Defund the Police/80% of guys, fuck 20% of girls/AFBB/etc

The problem (and power if used for political/religious organization) of slogans is it frames and limits the brains ability to think.

A far better way to apply Pareto's observation when it comes to dating is that '20% of your effort will get you 80% of your results.

Exactly. Looking at dating from this lens, basically means that most maxims that TRP teaches can be ignored or broken under many instances - this means they cease to be axioms and laws that people should blindly follow but rather use it to give a general sense of direction - like a compass.

I have discovered that often giving a woman choices (we could go here and here, or do x or x, etc) goes often far better than autistically imposing your will, as she feels she has the choice but it makes you look confident too.

At some point I was lost, I couldn't resolve the cognitive dissonance I observed: on the one hand TRP said axiomatically that 80% of girls fuck 20% of the guys, but reality showed me that average guys were getting average girls. I saw this enough times and began to doubt the 80/20 rule, which then made me re-evaluate other maxims as well.

@Chaddeus_Rex The Pareto Principle is an observation, not a law.

Guys calling it a 'law' and using it as an absolute are stuck in trying to apply absolutes where they don't exist.

It's seen in the autists who then justify the 'law' by rationalizing a way to include any guy who fucks as being in the 'top 20%'. Same as the guys who think every guy who fucks is somehow 'Alpha Fucks'.

Their attempt to maintain this illusionary law of the absolute sees them then broadening their definition of what must be top 20% and 'Alpha' until their minds fall into a black hole of self-confusion.

Or, they fall into what you say - the law of diminishing returns. 'I have been monk mode for a year, built my body, do plenty of hobbies...why does that loser over there fuck and not me'?

Because they're retarded.

These are the guys who need 'laws' and 'rules' in the dating scene, because they are incapable of making their own observations and lack the ability to organically make sense of their observations.

A far better way to apply Pareto's observation when it comes to dating is that '20% of your effort will get you 80% of your results.

In other words, guys should stop trying to so hard to be mega AlphaChadFucklord with impossible standards and chill the fuck out.

Pareto's principle was an observation of what 20% leads to the 80% outcome'. Most guys in Red Pill are incapable of observing what that 20% is.

It relates to another issue. The hyperreal simulacra that is Reddit Red Pill, where 'only the top 20% of men fuck 80% of women' is part of their simulated reality.

They have lost the ability to observe real life, and learn from it. They'll trade cultural cliches like 'the top 20% fuck 80%' because in their reality it's true. No matter that is doesn't reflect reality.