37 comments on “Like Creationists, Gamers Want To Be Exempt From Scientific Inquiry

  1. Umm, seriously? There is quite a bit of research out there that confirms various principles of game, and it gets brought up often on various blogs. Why aren’t the gamers themselves doing the research? Because doing legit social science research is incredibly time intensive and requires a lot of hard work. I’m pursuing a doctorate in a social science research field, and I can tell you right now I wouldn’t have the slightest idea how to design an experiment that you could do and which would prove that “game works”. I’m sure I could come up with experiments that might demonstrate small tenets of game, but I have better things to do with my time. I strongly doubt any of the big names in game are willing to throw $30,000 at a skilled researcher in order to prove some small aspect of game.

    However, that doesn’t mean that game doesn’t work or that it is a scam. Such an argument would be akin to saying 50 years ago that people are completely rational. I’m sure plenty of people back then would have argued against that, but the social science tools to address the problem did not arrive until Kahneman and Tversky in the 70s, and the research into that topic continues today.

    To put it bluntly, research that confirms game is starting to come along with some regularity by academic standards. I challenge you to produce any gamers who say that research into game should not be done. Your example is extremely poor: it means nothing that an individual gamer has no interest in scientific inquiry. There are a thousand things I believe which I have not taken the time to prove scientifically, and I have no time or interest in defending them should somebody attack their validity, even if I am certain of their truth: I have better things to do. The same will be true for many gamers when challenged on the validity of game. Their failure to defend it scientifically does not mean it is indefensible, it only shows that they do not care to defend it. I’ve already pointed out why: defending game with scientific research would be incredibly time-intensive and costly, and gamers would rather spend their money on chicks and cars and things like that.

    • Umm, seriously? There is quite a bit of research out there that confirms various principles of game

      No there isn’t. There are studies that confirm general common sense things like active listening, kino (touching to escalate), women being attracted to status (but science links status to LTRs, NOT SEX) etc… etc.

      Those are all things that everyone knows. None of those are unique to game and have been present in every dating book for a 100 years. Gamers do like taking credit for everything!

      They perform this trick where they teach 5% common-sense, 50% distorted shit, and 45% pure untrue bullshit, and they keep referencing the 5% as if game was about the 5% or as if they invented those 5%.

      Game is defined by the things that make it DIFFERENT that common sense.

      And there isn’t a single one of those things that is “confirmed”. THERE ARE A TON of studies that disprove major claims in game. Let me give you an example

      1) “Looks don’t matter” =>

      Bullshit, there’s several thousand studies that find the link between muscularity, physical type, facial shape and how many lays you get and whether women prefer you for an LTR or a FuckBuddy. THOUSANDS.

      NOTE – how this popular game claim disagrees with what most people believe. Things are DEFINED by how they differ from other things. Notice how THE thing that game is defined by is the one MOST conclusively proven wrong by science?

      2) “You can “fake status, charisma and social skills” for a night and get (otherwise uninterested women) to be interested in you and fuck you that night.”

      A common core theory in game goes something like this

      A) “Women are attracted to status.

      B) “Some women fuck some guys just 4 hours after knowing them”

      C) “Therefore if you simply demonstrate the traits of high-status men, you can switch evolutionary switches and make women fuck you in 4 hours” (women who otherwise wouldn’t have)

      BULLSHIT. Evo-psych research shows THE EXACT OPPOSITE, it says that women have evolved to actually USE impossible-to-fake traits for short-term mating. In other words, when women have one-night-stands, all the studies show, the guy’s charisma, social skills and wealth are virtually NON-IMPORTANT. Those are all traits that ONLY become important when women are seeking providers and long-term mates.

      THE GREATEST EVO-PSYCHERS ALL SAY THIS – yes, the same big names the fucktard gamers claim to be basing themselves on (like david bus etc).

      But the evo-psychers themselves SAY that when women have one-night stands or choose sex partners their ONLY criteria is the guy’s genetics and that personality, status, social proof don’t even come into the picture.

      Yet gamers make like 5 leaps in logic. They say you can “fake being high status” and you only have to do it for the duration of 4-7 hours, and BAM you make an otherwise unattracted woman want to bang you. THAT IS ENTIRELY RETARDED AND COMPLETELY AGAINST WHAT EVO PSYCH AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY HAVE FOUND. COMPLETELY WRONG.

      3) “You can create sexual attraction by what you say and do”

      That’s also never ever been proven, and is also at odds with the stuff I mention in point number two. What gamie fucks like to do is take unrelated research and apply it to unrelated things. Like for example they’ll take a salesman technique that increases the odds a woman gives you her number by 10% and say SEEE SEEEEEEEE our technique makes women more attracted to you. SEEEEEEEE validated by science!!

      What they don’t tell you is that in the end, none of those phone numbers converts to actually fucking that woman. EVER WONDER WHY GAMERS HAVE THE MOST CRAZY AND INCREDIBLE flake ratios in the world? It’s because they fucking believe that all those things they do and say increase attraction, whereas all they do is increase fake positives (a woman agreeing to go out with you, or a woman giving you her number). At the end bottom-line, not one can demonstrate BETTER-THAT-AVERAGE approach-to-fuck ratios. Kind of weird for people who supposedly can “create sexual attraction” consciously, huh?

      I’m pursuing a doctorate in a social science research field

      No you’re not. I’m only half-way towards a masters, and I can tell you are like 10 times more ignorant than I am. And I myself am 10 times more ignorant than what I should be when I do get a PhD, and even then I’ll be 10 times more ignorant than someone like David Buss WHO SAYS THAT GAMERS ARE WRONG. Yet the fuckers keep quoting him. Some fucking illiterate nerve they have.

      I can tell you right now I wouldn’t have the slightest idea how to design an experiment that you could do and which would prove that “game works”. I’m sure I could come up with experiments that might demonstrate small tenets of game, but I have better things to do with my time. I strongly doubt any of the big names in game are willing to throw $30,000 at a skilled researcher in order to prove some small aspect of game.

      Yep, it’s like proving god doesn’t exist, can’t design such an experiment.

      However, the guy at seductionmyth never proposed to disprove game (since the fuckers keep reinventing it and have like 10,000 definitions).

      What he ACTUALLY proposed is to actually challenge the TOP gamers in the world to prove they can get better than placebo results.

      Make sense?

      Even though you are right, you are only right in terms of semantics. We can’t prove “game doesn’t work”. We can however prove that NOBODY practicing game can get any results better than placebo.

      Make sense?

      To put it bluntly, research that confirms game is starting to come along with some regularity by academic standards

      You’re SO fucking full of shit. You’ve got feces dropping out of your eardrums.

      I can link you to SEVERAL THOUSAND studies disproving the 3 main facets of game that I pointed to above.

      Can you point me to even ONE study that proves “looks don’t matter” or that you can “consciously create sexual attraction”* Can you point me to even ONE study that confirms that you conciously act out charisma and make women fuck you that way. JUST ONE SUCH STUDY?

      *Note, I said sexual attraction, not personal attraction, not likability. Plenty of studies that confirm random self-help techniques that do make you more likeable. I am asking about SEXUAL attraction. EVEN ONE STUDY. Note I say make women FUCK YOU (or want to fuck you), not make women rate you higher on a personality test.

      Your example is extremely poor: it means nothing that an individual gamer has no interest in scientific inquiry

      No you manipulative fuck. He did not say INDIVIDUAL gamer. HE said NOBODY EVER IN THE WHOLE FUCKING INDUSTRY HAS EVER ACCEPTED TO BE VALIDATED OR TESTED EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE GAME INDUSTRY. NOT ONE PERSON HAS EVER TAKEN ON A SINGLE CHALLENGE EVER.

      ITS A FUCKING MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY. IT WOULD COST THEM 0.0001% OF THEIR PROFITS TO VALIDATE MOST OF THEIR MAJOR CLAIMS OR AT THE VERY LEAST VALIDATE THEY CAN GET GUYS BETTER THEN PLACEBO RESULTS. THEY BAN PEOPLE FOR EVEN SUGGESTING THE IDEA OF A FAIR TEST.

      heir failure to defend it scientifically does not mean it is indefensible, it only shows that they do not care to defend it. I’ve already pointed out why: defending game with scientific research would be incredibly time-intensive and costly,

      No IT WOULDNT YOU LYING FUCK.

      A SINGLE A/B EXPERIMENT THAT COSTS JUST 0.1% OF DEANGELO’S ANNUAL EARNINGS COULD VALIDATE WHETHER HE IS NOT A COMPLETE SCAM.

      YOU DONT HAVE TO PROVE EVERY FACET SEPARATELY YOU MANIPULATIVE FUCK.

      ITS SIMPLE.

      GET A GROUP OF THIRTY GUYS THAT ARE GIVEN PLACEBO ADVICE.

      GET A GROUP OF THIRTY GUYS THAT ARE GIVEN DEANGELO ADVICE

      LET THEM APPROACH

      IF BOTH GROUPS HAVE THE SAME RESULTS ITS A FUCKING SCAM.

      YOUR FUCKING EXCUSES ARE LAME AND PATHETIC. DONT GIVE ME THE FUCKING PATHETIC EXCUSE ABOUT SUPPOSEDLY HAVING TO TEST EVERY SINGLE LITTLE FACET YOU PATHETIC FUCK.

      and gamers would rather spend their money on chicks and cars and things like that.

      As do most people scammers selling snake oil to desperate people.

  2. By the way, I saw your post that suggested that seductionmyth has an area with an experiment that could be carried out. It does not. There is nothing there that would be the groundwork for any sort of reasonably successful experiment. Nothing.

    While I recognize that there is quite a lot of bullshit in game, the failure to adequately identify what game IS would be only the first of a thousand shortcomings in any experiment that has been weakly cooked up. If you really want to disprove game, decompose it into every single element, then experiment with each one. If you have a few decades, that is.

    • While I recognize that there is quite a lot of bullshit in game, the failure to adequately identify what game IS would be only the first of a thousand shortcomings in any experiment that has been weakly cooked up. If you really want to disprove game, decompose it into every single element, then experiment with each one. If you have a few decades, that is.

      Stop being a manipulative fuck.

      There is no need to test every element separately to show whether game is not a scam. When they test and scientifically validate new therapy schools in psychology, they test the therapy as a whole at first to say whether it does anything or not and if it DESERVES FURTHER STUDY AT ALL.

      In pharmacology they first test WHOLE PLANTS (that natives claim do something) and if the whole plant does something, only then do they break it down to it’s elements and study the elements.

      Specific elements are only isolated later on to see HOW it (the whole approach) works, IF it even worked in the first place. But in order to show IF IT WORKS AT ALL, you only only need to test the whole.

      In other words, get 400 guys who identify as gamers, get 400 guys who don’t and let them do the exact same approaches.

      (first separate them by physical looks, height, race so that they’re matched in everything except belief in game profiency).

      If gammie fucks don’t get signifcantly better results than non-gamers (i.e. sane people), then it’s a scam and there is no need to test the specific elements.

      So stop making up excuses for your pathetic little cult. “Oho boooohooo, my scammer overlods can’t afford 0.0001% of their earnings to sponsor a simple a/b test, they’re too busy buying ferraris with money from idiotic gullible fucks like me”.

      • Specifically, as I wrote in response to your initial series of vomit above, the whole way this scam (and other pseudo-scientific scams) work is by taking elements and inferring overall meaning to overall strategy in a completely different context.

        It’s precisely because asocial nerds like you don’t know that being liked by a woman more means nothing in fucking her that they can get away with selling techniques based on false positives.

        They take a technique that makes a women like you more AS A PERSON or give more numbers and infer that it “causes sexual attraction” where there’s no evidence of such a thing anywhere.

        The whole PROBLEM with pseudo-scientific cults is that they get away with selling their scams because they insist on sticking to testing and discussing ELEMENTS and only INFERRING how those separate elements fit into a wider-strategy.

        It’s fucking simple dude.

        Get fucking 100 guys to do some game-fuck method. Get a 100 guys of equal looks, height and build to something like SIRC.

        Don’t give me that pathetic elements and decades bullshit. WE CAN TEST YOUR CULT TONIGHT. NO FUCKING DECADES NEEDED.

        • It’s fucking simple dude.

          Get fucking 100 guys to do some game-fuck method. Get a 100 guys of equal looks, height and build to something like SIRC.

          Tell a 100 gamers that they’ll win a 1000$ prize if they get laid tonight.
          Tell a 100 non-gamers that they’ll win a 1000$ prize if they get laid tonight.

          If gamers don’t get more lays, it’s a SCAM. That is the BOTTOM LINE. I don’t care if specific sub-elements increase numbers of phone numbers gotten. I don’t care if individual elements increase amount of succesful set openings… etc… etc. It’s specifically those FALSE positives that have allowed this cult to thrive.

          TEST THE WHOLE.

  3. @BlackPill (the article as a whole)

    All great points about why science is always a must, and gamers’ standard excuses are not valid.

    I would add just one thing. A new excuse, or a later-level excuse that gamers are coming up with is to say that this stuff is “too complex to test and would take decades and millions of dollars”.

    The idiocy of this excuse and rationalization is just mind-blowing. They’re doing a typical bait-and-switch trick.

    Yes, it’s true that IF game worked, you would need decades to study all the 432 techniques and claims to see how it all works. But we’re not looking for how it works.

    We only want to know if ITS NOT A COMPLETE SCAM. In other words, we want a simple A/B test where a 1000 gamers compete for a prize of getting laid, and a 1000 non-gamers do.

    If the gamers GET ANYTHING DIFFERENT than the non-gamers, then it works and deserves further study to find out how it works.

    SIMPLE!

    P.S.

    Can be done in no time and on the cheap (maybe even free if a few researchers volunteer their time, coz the actual guys doing the approaching will all do it for free anyway). So pleeaaaaze, these new rationalizations by gamers are just pathetic.

    P.P.S.

    Another excuse is that there’s different types of game. But that’s why I would do this test with the top 10 types of game. If you cover the top 10 game schools, you cover 95% of things taught in all schools of game.

    Again, in this test we’re asking for nothing more than a “better than zero” result. That’s it. Even a small difference above the control-group would be seen as a defeat to non-gamers.

  4. This is actually a serious question I have for you guys – do you think that guys who believe in game long-term simply lack the intelligence to understand the cognitive dissonance they involve themselves in and the logical distinctions between different concepts necessary to understand why game is bullshit?

    I have been arguing with gamers a lot lately and I am struck by how they seem unable to grasp somewhat subtle distinctions between key terms and concepts – I have the impression of nothing so much as arguing with someone who is a bit slow when I argue with gamers. You just have to explain the same distinctions over and over again, and they don’t seem to grasp simple things.

    Now I am well aware that intelligent people can be emotionally motivated to refuse to see the truth about something to the point where they will produce laughably stupid arguments in favor of their position, but I don’t know – the idea that long-term gamers who don’t snap out of it are just a bit stupid goes well with the anti-science bias, as well as – and this is important I think – the fact that they are all so impressed with roissy. Now what is distinctive about roissy is that he writes in this incredibly flashy and impressive and bombastic style that seems designed to lull the critical faculties to sleep. Generally it is the less intelligent who allow a flasshy and emotional style to impress them because they are so dazzled by the display of verbal fireworks that their relatively weak logical thinking abilities are completely overwhelmed.

    Now I am not saying that every guy who buys into game is stupid. I bought into game. Aleknovy did. But we saw through it and when we were presented with arguments against it we immediately grasped what was afoot and did not argue for game.

    In other words, we many not have been able to articulate what was wrong with game, but once we saw a well thought out anti-game position we immediately grasped its truth.

    On the other hand, it may not be a question of intelligence but merely that these guys are emotionally motivated to believe in game and so they do not “allow” themselves to grasp the relatively obvious, perhaps mildly subtle, distinctions we present them with when arguing against game.

    What do you guys think?

    • Now I am not saying that every guy who buys into game is stupid. I bought into game. Aleknovy did. But we saw through it and when we were presented with arguments against it we immediately grasped what was afoot and did not argue for game.

      Maybe this particular kind of gamers (the roissysphere) gamers are more a fucked up kind?

      Because most people in the general game community are like you and me, they leave the cult when they are faced with logic.

      Most people who believe in game, only did so because they were never challenged, they just “went along with it”. Most are reasonable when they start actually tracking results, asked a skeptical question

      RoissySphere seems to attract a certain kind of person who seems to be far more cult-like than the average pua/gamer. Has a far stronger defense mechanism about their beliefs being challenged. For example look at the amount of racists and conspiracy-theorists in the RoissySphere. It’s far higher than in any blogosphere I’ve seen this side of WNs.

      If you go to the general seduction-community, you do not see racists or conspiracy theories. I guess this is why people in the general community are less cult-like?

      • Hey that makes a great deal of sense Alek! I was actually introduced to game through the Roissysphere, so for me that was the typical, average gamer 😉 But its heartening to hear that this is NOT a representative sample.

      • This is very interesting. My experiences with gamers have been almost exclusively Roissysphere gamers except for a few bits when non-roissy gamers would talk positively about feminism. Alek, would you say that non-roissy gamers are broadly the same as the general population when it comes to diet, politics, and the rest of the world outside of game?

        In thinking about this, it seems like the Roissysphere gamer is part of something that might be called “the paleo cult” for lack of a better term. Game for them is part of a much larger ideology against the modern world. They are pro-game because they perceive it as they way men and women used to have relationships. (This is BS of course, but that’s how they perceive it. They follow the paleo diet because that’s how they think people used to eat. (That is BS too, but it’s what they think.) Their views on politics (sucking Ron Paul’s dick and conspiracy theory) and race (racism) follow this pattern. They are also doomsayers since a collapse of society is the only way they can turn back the clock.

        Despite the paleo cult’s claimed anti-feminism, they aren’t actual supporters of mens rights. Mens rights is about moving to the future not the past. This means that the paleo cult is in direct opposition to the MRM and is now the MRM’s biggest immediate, short term problem.

  5. Alek,

    I couldn’t leave a comment on your blog, so I’ll leave it here. In a recent post, you briefly cited your experience in the PUA business, having sarged with the most famous PUAs, etc. Have you done a post discussing your background, and what led you to leave the business? If not, is one in the cards? It would be FASCINATING reading…

    MarkyMark

    • I left it when two things happened

      a) I could no longer rationalize why so many guys were leaving the community after 4-6 years. Of course, while I was still in it, I rationalized everyone leaving it as them being “pussies who can’t take it. But overtime, I realized that 99% of people in it, leave within 3-6 years. I could no longer have a blind-spot to it.

      b) I finally snapped out of my trance and realized how game gurus are ruining lives. After many years of involvement, the end result I saw all around me was not only that 99% of the men we dealt with never improved, most became weirder, more socially anxious and more fucked up than before discovering the community. They were all just more addicted to trying to sell game to their friends and writing game blogs than they were at leaving the house. They were more addicted to acquiring new game theories than they ever were in looking at themselves in the mirror.

      Disclaimer:

      I never believed in game per-se, but I did believe the community can help teach guys social skills, teach them how to be more confident, teach men how to flirt. It took me a long time of having huge-blindspots to finally see the reality – it was fucking up 19 guys for every 1 guy that got helped.

      And the guys who got helped all had one thing in common. They almost did no reading of game stuff. They merely had picked up a few ideas, believed them, and due to placebo went out and applied a lot of it, eventually getting a girlfriend due to approaching a lot. But these guys literally have never read a single game blog or ebook – they just would pick up the overall concept from skimming.

  6. People today seem to want to use ‘scientific’ in areas where its basically meaningless.

    Game is empirically driven at the individual level; this makes its basic methods similar to experimental science, whilst at the same time invalidating its (dis)provability at a population level. My view is that this makes it like most of the soft sciences, which lack rigor (my background is in hard sciences / mathematics, which tends to color my view of this).

    In other words: game is a framework for testing for yourself what works and does not work with women. General game principles are an attempt to summarize and accelerate the learning process for men, but are not some silver bullet that work in the same way for all guys.

    The idea of a large scale controlled test of gaming is appealing, however I’m not really clear how this could be properly set up (e.g. would the study stick to one country, one city, one nightclub even; how do you ensure that the two populations are equivalent except for game [as a practical example of this: guys heavily into game are likely to appear more confident on average, so would you end up picking a control group exhibiting similar characteristics, thereby nullifying the advantage that game has given the gamers?]; and so on)

    You have the same problem with scientific claims / requirements over religion. Creationism taken literally conflicts with science, but as a metaphor it is a starting point for an individual’s mystical journey. Mysticism itself (here meaning the traditional christian mystics such as the gnostics, or their equivalent in the other western religions, or alternatively the mystical traditions of hinduism and buddhism, but not the new-age shit that the 60’s hippies dreamed up) is in some ways similar to way that game works: each person must investigate their own true nature to realize mystical awareness; there can be no scientific corroboration of this because its simply not repeatable for others (unless they take their own, likely different, mystical journey). However, there are still principles to help guide the mystical journey, and the best form of instruction is from direct teachings provided by a qualified guru.

    • See what I mean? Like how many basic principles and distinctions does this guy not get? Pretty much every point here was addressed by OVR in the original post and Aleknovys subsequent replies, yet the guy STILL posts this. If you explain it to him, will he *get it* then? It does not seem likely. He will probably just go silent like they all do.

      • If you explain it to him, will he *get it* then? It does not seem likely. He will probably just go silent like they all do.

        They always do my friend. The pattern goes a little something like this.

        -> Gamer comes and spews a bunch of bullshit

        -> He is educated and his bullshit ripped apart with logic, evidence and facts

        -> The gamer completely misreads what we say in our educating him, he misread of misquotes the explanations

        -> We clarify it to him so clearly that he no longer has an excuse for not facing the logic, evidence and facts that defeat the game cult

        -> Gamer goes silent and disappears

    • BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA BLA

      STOP FUCKING MAKING EXCUSES.

      YOU FUCKING WROTE LIKE FUCKING ESSAY ABOUT FUCKING SPIRITUALITY AND MYSTICISM JUST TO AVOID A SIMPLE A/B TEST.

      IT’s simple you fuck. We take a 1000 of you gamers, we take a 1000 (physically matched nerds) and let them compete for a prize.

      All your excuses make sense if we were testing 1 gamer vs. one none gamer. With a sample size of ONE THOUSAND your fucking excuses all seem pathetic.

      Stop blabbing. Why won’t you fucks accept the challenge? Notice how the challenge doesn’t claim nor ask to prove how game actually works. All it seeks to prove is whether you get EVEN AT ALL a marginally better result than random.

      YOU HAVE NO EXCUSES – THEY ARE ALL PATHETIC

  7. Also, on the point made by a commenter above re: looks and game.

    Whats interesting about this is that as soon as you stop listening to what women say they want, and watching what they do instead, it becomes clear that for a man to be sexually appealing to women, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to be handsome.

    On the flip side, its pretty much unarguable that men find beautiful women more sexually appealing than plain or ugly ones (barring individual fetishes of course).

    Roissy had some links to some dating site research recently, which showed that whilst women think only 20% of men are handsome (i.e. their preferences show massive skewing to rate men as ugly rather than rating men on a normal bell curve), they tended to write to the ugly men more. I.e. ceteris paribus being good looking helps, but its not the primary factor that attracts women to men.

    Of course, you’re free to believe that only good looking guys end up having one night stands, but this doesn’t seem to be the reality on the ground.

    Its also unclear how you’re separating genetics from status and charisma; these things tend to be correlated.

    It would be good to have a link to the evo psych research that those claims are based on.

    • TO QUOTE GEORGE:

      It is almost as if you did not really bother readning either alek or the original post. Your points were addressed.

      DUDE HELLO GUNN. EVERY SINGLE THING YOU ARE SAYING HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED, OR YOU MISREAD. EVERY SINGLE THING IN YOUR COMMENT.

      The rest has been more extensively answered over at seduction myth.

      Whats interesting about this is that as soon as you stop listening to what women say they want,

      It’s not based onwhat women say. In fact WOMEN SAY LOOKS DON’T MATTER.

      Science (evo-psych) finds that looks DO matter. Get it? CAN YOU FUCKING SCAMMERS MAKE UP YOUR MIND ABOUT EVO-PSYCH?

      FIRST YOU CLAIM TO BE SUPPOSEDLY BASED AROUND EVO-PSYCH, BUT NEXT YOU CLAIM EVO-PSYCH IS WRONG.

      MAKE

      UP

      YOUR

      FUCKING

      MIND

      Evo-psych and it’s leading authors (including David Buss) ALL SAY that for short-term mating looks are the most important factor to women. ARE YOU SAYING EVO PSYCH IS WRONG?

      and watching what they do instead, it becomes clear that for a man to be sexually appealing to women, it is neither necessary nor sufficient to be handsome.

      Nobody said you need to be HANDSOME in order to be at all sexually appealing to women… pay attention.

      What the science finds is that:

      -> (looks as pre-requisite)

      There is a certain genetically matching level you must meet to be sexually attractive to a particular woman. ITS CALLED TYPES. Women who are sexually attracted to Johnny Depp will never be attracted to Brad Pitt no matter how he walks, talks, or what he says or does. DO YOU GET IT? They’re both equally handsome, but have “different looks”.

      In other words, a plain guy who’s genetically her type, will make her more attracted than a handsome guy who’s not her type. MAKE SENSE?

      -> (looks as merely a booster)

      Then comes handsomeness and athleticism. Between two guys who are both a woman’s type, the more handsome guy will have a far easier time and chance getting laid. There are studies linking certain facial traits and body shapes to numbers of partners. And the booster effect is huge.

      It means that you will need to approach less women, meet less resistance and do less work to get laid. So in other words, handsomeness is not a pre-requisite, it’s merely a results booster. When PUAs say “looks don’t matter, it’s all skill”. They’re saying that you and your more handsome brother will have the exact same results provided you do and say the exact same things. That is a PURE LIE.

      Roissy had some links to some dating site research recently, which showed that whilst women think only 20% of men are handsome (i.e. their preferences show massive skewing to rate men as ugly rather than rating men on a normal bell curve), they tended to write to the ugly men more. I.e. ceteris paribus being good looking helps, but its not the primary factor that attracts women to men.

      Are you illiterate or misreading on purpose. I specifically said that science finds that WOMEN DO NOT CARE ABOUT LOOKS almost at all when it comes to RELATIONSHIPS (past a base level of being enough of her type, but almost no advantage to handsomeness).

      What ROISSY and other pua-fucks always do is CONFLATE research on LTRs with application in short-term sex. The women on eCupid (the study you mention) were looking for BOYFRIENDS not one-night-stands when they contacted the men.

      In other words, while they are more willing to DATE 60-80% of the men, they REALLY would only accept as fuck-buddies the top 20% they’re attracted to. Make sense? They weren’t lying when they picked the top 20% as being attractive, they really did find 80% unattractive. The thing is women don’t mind using unattractive men as providers.

      Of course, you’re free to believe that only good looking guys end up having one night stands, but this doesn’t seem to be the reality on the ground.

      I NEVER SAID NO SUCH THING YOU LYING FUCK. YOU ARE EITHER

      A) ILLITERATE
      B) MISREADING ON PURPOSE

      Which is it? Seductionmyth keeps fucking re-explaining and reclarying this thing because you bozos keep misreading it on purpose.

      What the science finds is that guys who are more handsome HAVE AN EASIER time getting laid. DO YOU FUCKING GET IT.

      IT IS NOT A PRE-REQUISITE. IT IS A BOOSTER. For example, all else equal, the better physiqued men have 2-300% more sexual partners.

      What fucking PUAs do is go

      -> “Hey, I saw an ugly guy marry a hot chick once”

      -> But he, the PUA skips the fact that she’s married to him due to personality and would be 10x less likely to have had just a one-night-stand with him

      -> In other words, he would have needed to approach MANY, MANY MANY MORE women in order to lay 10 women like her, than would a handsome guy

      -> But the pua fuck still says “looks don’t matter, it’s all skill, any man can attract any woman provided he says and does the right things”

      -> Thereby ignoring the part of looks that IS a pre-requisite, namely being her genetic match. Remember, being her genetic math (type) doesn’t mean you are handsome. But if you’re in her type there is no fucking line or way of walking you can implement that will make her want to fuck you. Just like there’s nothing Johnny Depp can do in order to be sexually attractive to Brad Pitt fans. Do you get it?

      DO YOU GET IT? NOBODY SAID IT IS A PRE-REQUISITE. DO YOU LACK BASING READING COMPREHENSION? HAVE YOU NOT READ SEDUCTIONMYTH YET?

      • On the Evo-Psych vs. Gamers, see this:

        Password: hjernevask

        You have an interview with David Buss (and another leading evo-psycher) explaining how when it comes to short-term mating, looks are the PRIMARY factor.

        ARE YOU GAMER FUCKS SAYING THAT DAVID BUSS IS WRONG? BUT I THOUGHT YOU GUYS LIKED EVO-PSYCH? WHY ARE YOU GAMMIE FUCKS NOW SAYING ITS WRONG?

  8. @George

    You are free to play the man not the ball, but it doesn’t really help your argument.

    The post written by Omega virgin is a mess, because he misunderstands the applicability of science to fields such as game.

    • Eh…let alek take up the cudgels……if he wishes. He is better at that than me and seems to enjoy it more. It is almost as if you did not really bother readning either alek or the original post. Your points were addressed.

  9. Pingback: Where Does The Lack Of Evidence Of Game Leave Pro-Game Women? | The Black Pill

  10. As man that is a virgin, I have to point out that you forget to add that evolution has been exempt from the scientific method for the last 150 years . The only link I see between us and apes is Darwin himself who looks like an ape. The cell itself is proof itself for intelligent design. Just because you don’t like feminism it doesn’t mean you need to erroneously compare it to creationism . I personally hate feminism myself.

    The best way to let feminism fail is to let them hook up with the gameplayers and pimps as those are the most able people to handle them.

    My lord and savior respected his mother Mary very much but I don’t think he would have liked feminism alone. If I would compare feminism to anything it would be to the idiotic and intellectually bankrupt worldview called atheism.

    • The fact that many gamers comically flee to Thailand or Eastern Europe shows how much faith they have in their own product.

      Very true. While I have no problem with a man moving to another country (It’s something I consider all the time), gamers according to their writings shouldn’t have to do that to get laid. Another thing that shows the gamers don’t have faith in their own product is the “no fat chicks” challenge going around the game blogs. According to what the gamers say, such a challenge should be completely unnecessary. It’s just another example showing that gamers get laid as much as I do.

      • Yah, so ironic 😀

        That’s like a six-pack expert giving himself a “no more binging and pigging out” challenge 😀

  11. Pingback: The Two Ultimate Examples Why Game Doesn’t Exist | The Black Pill

  12. Pingback: To Be Against Civilization Is To Be Feminist | The Black Pill

  13. Pingback: Worse Than Placiebo | The Black Pill

  14. Pingback: The Reason Why The Manosphere Attracts Scams By The Truckload | The Black Pill

  15. Pingback: Fact VS. Truth | The Black Pill

  16. Pingback: Predatory Sex Therapists In Silicon Valley | The Black Pill

  17. Pingback: Does The Manuresphere Even Lift? | The Black Pill

    • Thank you, I’d been looking for the experiment (as originally described by him) fruitlessly.

      Thanks for putting in the effort of debunking this crap, it helps me remember why I’m going my own way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s