Having graduated with a (now largely useless) Business degree from the University of Hawaii, I had two years of economics courses, and in hindsight, I've come to realize the primary difference between the Keynesian-based economics curriculum of my Business college and the Austrian school and it's proponents, is that Keynesian economics starts off with the
Anyone interested in an in-depth description of Praxeology and the difference between it and the 'hard' sciences, should read Austrian luminary, Murray Rothbard's piece on Praxeology here(pdf).
But for expediency's sake, as Rothbard's treatise on the topic is somewhat in-depth, we can just go with the definition posted by Wikipedia, who's entry for Praxeology defines it thusly:
"Praxeology is the deductive study of human action based on the action axiom. The most common use of the term is in connection with the Austrian School of Economics, as established by economist Ludwig von Mises."
The deductive study of human action based on the action axiom...so what's the action axiom?
"An action axiom is an axiom that embodies a criterion for recommending action. Action axioms are of the form "If a condition holds, then the following should be done."
Given that Vox is both an ascribed creationist Christian and an avowed proponent of the School of Austrian Economics, I find it completely fitting that he is also a proponent of game while completely dismissing the relevancy of evolutionary biology and psychology that are the so-called sciences cited by many game proponents and PUA. In the comment thread of Vox's response to GBFM, he writes:
"Evolutionary biology is nothing but ex post facto fairy tales and psychology is bullshit. Game doesn't require grounding in anything but observation of human behavior and the construction of predictive models from it. The "why" is irrelevant."
In other words, Game as we've come to know it here on these fringes of teh Interwebz, is a Praxeology...i.e. Game is the deductive study of human sexuality and inter-relational behavior based on the action axiom - "If a condition holds, then the following should be done."
Here is but one example that I can think of off the top of my head, that is a game-based action axiom:
*** Women often "fitness test" or "shit test" men. Men interested in mating with a woman need to learn how to recognize when she does this. When he ascertains that in fact she is attempting to fitness test him, there are several known responses that other men have employed with varying degrees of success, such as "agree and amplify."***
Looking at game as an exercise in Praxeology should help those who struggle with the morality of accepting these ideas of game description and proscription, versus the vehement distaste for the immorality of promiscuity many (but not all) game proponents advocate and celebrate.
While I am not trying to speak for anyone else here, I do believe the defining line between those of us in the MAndrosphere who are nominally Christian and advocate Christian Marriage (Vox, Dalrock et al), and see no conflict between Game and Christian morality, versus all the other Christians who are up in arms about it and repeatedly denounce it, is that those of us in favor, simply view game as a Praxeology; it is not a hard science, nor is it a moral code to live by. Rather, it is simply using deductive reasoning to come up with action axiom's to describe the hows and whys of human intersexual attraction and mating behaviors.
These action axioms are useful tools for men to recognize and reverse engineer the myriad of deliberately inculcated dysfunctional behaviors and characteristics that pervades societies institutions, mass media programming and subversion of our churches with the idolatry of Goddess worship. As more and more men embrace the axioms of the Game Praxeology, more and more discover anecdotally that they are based on observable truths regardless of the morality of the men doing the "testing in the field."
Just because men committed to Christian morality may take ideas from and discuss with the axiomatic truths of game with the immorally promiscuous PUAs, does not mean we are holding it up as a new religion, a new moral paradigm or a new idol to be worshiped blindly and in total faith; nor does it mean we are deifying or glorifying fornication, adultery and promiscuity.
We are ALL fallen sinners. Based on our common, fallen and debased nature as sinners, throwing out the axiomatic truths of game simply because they are espoused by sexual sinners is akin to throwing out YOUR argument (any argument on any topic, that you choose to make) based on your own sinful nature.
If one considers the ideas on their own merit, and not the person who is voicing the idea, there should be no moral problems with men employing the axiomatic actions prescribed by immoral game practitioners for his own use, to achieve his own Godly goals of sustaining the covenant of marriage and leading his family.
As Vox wrote on his post Game vs. Churchian Idolatry:
Now, Game is not Christ. Game is not Truth. But Game is truth, and he who comes to love truth will, in time, come to love Truth as well.
Amen.
We are all one day going to face our creator, and have to account for our sins.
Of all my sins I dread accounting for, "learning to neg my wife from reading the anecdotes of Pick Up Artists on teh Interwebz," is definitely not one of 'em.
37 comments:
I also dismiss Evo-Psych because it isn't a science and you make up whatever fairy-tale you want to explain anything you want.
I took proficiency tests for Intro to Macro/Micro and then paid for the Intermediate classes. After that I knew enough to dismiss the entire Keynesian school.
One of my friends, who was working on a Ph.D. in Econ, dropped out, saying it was a bunch of B.S.
Keoni:
"These action axioms are useful tools for men to recognize and reverse engineer the myriad of deliberately inculcated dysfunctional behaviors and characteristics that pervades societal institutions, mass media programming and subversion of our churches with the idolatry of goddess worship."
And yet no Game apologist has ever explained how Game can possibly function without an emphasis on idolatrizing female sexuality. There's nothing in the ideology of Game that makes sexual encounters OPTIONAL. Hence, it is totally feminocentric, exactly like feminism.
As for Dalrock and Vox: as GB4M has routinely also asked (and never gotten a response) where exactly does the Bible teach Game?
And where are all the scientific researches supporting any of it? Nowhere but in these guys' imaginations!
And yet no Game apologist has ever explained how Game can possibly function without an emphasis on idolatrizing female sexuality.
"Game apologist" reminds me of the entire "climate denier" label AGW proponents use...
Besides, it looks to me like most of the current thinkers promoting "Game" all promote striving for the idealization of masculine excellence.
There's nothing in the ideology of Game that makes sexual encounters OPTIONAL. Hence, it is totally feminocentric, exactly like feminism.
Ah, but this is the difference in views on the topic. This post was my attempt at changing the terms of the debate, in pointing out that "game" is not an ideology, or a "science" explained by Evo-psych, but that it is a Praxeology. You can disagree with my assessment, but I got no argument to bring to you in terms of whether it's an ideology or not. I don't buy that....but I will accept that SOME guys treat it like an ideology. That's not me, nor my argument here.
- @ Bob - as you know, I pretty much read everything you blog about. I too am familiar with all of your arguments against Game. I actually think with you, it's a difference of semantics. Your blogging of the ancient concepts of the masculine pursuit of honor and excellence (IIRC, "arete?") are essentially discussions of the same topics discussed by many Game proponents.
Anyhow, I respect both you and Eric, and appreciate your regular commentary here. On this particular subject, we will probably never agree...I just can't get past my personal experience validating the study I devoted to the topic. Call it confirmation bias if you will.
@Eric
Caldo claims the Bible teaches game. It's the least false thing he says about it: He has verses that match game concepts. There's nothing in the Bible that forbids a realistic appreciation of female nature, much that encourages it, and of course nothing that forbids non-Biblical sources of information.
Everything else you say is so bizarrely off topic that I don't think you even read Keoni's post. You're arguing against ideas he explicitly rejects. And the "idolatrizing" thing is gibberish. Word salad.
Meanwhile, whatever Krauser's success rate may be with women half his age who'd never even talk to you, it's a fact that I took a cranky, bitchy, hypercritical, frigid, unsppeasable wife and turned her into a good and loving one using the practical relationship advice Keoni is talking about. Same couple, different male responses to the same female childishness. She changed. She knows the word "sorry" now, and she uses it. The marriage was all about her moods and whims, back when we played by your rules. Now we play by game rules, and I spend very little time trying to please her, while she's always texting me from stores asking if I want things she saw. She's teetotal, but she always checks every liquor aisle for hard to find bourbons I like.
It's simple: They love it when you won't kiss their ass or bend with their emotional crap. They hate it when you do.
My self-respect is worth more to me than my marriage, and she knows it. So she values and respects me. That's what they want most in a man: Manhood. So I treat her nice because she earns it, and appreciates it because she had to earn it to get it. She makes my life better than it would be without her.
She's s woman, and human. She's not perfect. When she does wrong, I let her know it. Since I gained the upper hand, she's been contrite when that hsppens.
You model of relationships makes no sense. You castrate yourself and obey her just to make her unhappy? That's insane. Show me where the Bible tells you to obey women.
Correction - typing on my phone, can't proofread well: I spend very little time doing nice things for her (husband duty stuff like home repairs don't count). I spend zero time "trying to please her". I mean zero. Never, never try to please a woman. Be nice to her, though, IF she'll appreciate it. When they appreciate it, it's a joy. Don't overdo it or they take it for granted.
"And yet no Game apologist has ever explained how Game can possibly function without an emphasis on idolatrizing female sexuality."
I just have to add that yes they have. Many times. You clearly don't read the source material you are criticizing. Many a blog post has been written about how game can be applied entirely outside of the context of sex.
As for dismissing Evo-Psych, you certainly can, but you're making a mistake. By disregarding potentially accurate information because you don't like the source, you cut yourself off from finding out certain truths. I've had the same argument with Christians about the paleo diet. I used to have to point out that just because people believe in evolution doesn't mean that they know nothing about nutrition. But now that I'm familiar with Weston Price I can also point out that there is an entirely different logical model that does not need evolution and yet arrives at all the same conclusions.
@Bob Wallac,
I too have a Master’s Degree in Applied Economics from John’s Hopkins University. It was hard for me to accept the basic assumption (that human beings are utility maximizing rational agents) economics is based on. For me observing the people around me and human beings in general, it is safe to assume we all are rationalizing beings not rational beings. On the other hand, I have Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science and Mathematics. Those are exact Science. They are deterministic every single time. When you deal with staff in those fields, there is no middle ground, either you are right or you are wrong. Whereas, Economics is probabilistic at best.
-BK
Booch:
"Yes they have. Many times."
So tell us about one, since they're so plentiful.
Pisco:
You're an idiot. As it happens, I've travelled to other countries and have had lots of non-feminist women 'half your age who would never talk to you' as steady girlfriends while I was there. I'm still friends with a lot of them. And I didn't need Krauser or anybody else to tell me what to do.
When you're around REAL women---not 'bitchy, cranky, hypercritical, frigid unappeasable' Ameroskanks---you can just be yourself instead of having to turn everything into a feminist-style 'game' of gender politics.
Keoni:
Thanks for the positive feedback. Like Rob Fedders used to say, there'll never be 100% agreement in the Manosphere over anything!
I don't consider what you said to be 'confirmation bias' at all. But I do think it might be a case of thinking that 'the exception proves the rule'.
Unlike what's taught in Game, I think most women, like most men are different and have differing tastes and differing things that appeal to them in relationships. Mathematically, there's going to be a certain percentage of women---maybe your wife is one---who finds the methods used in Game appealing. But I don't think ALL women are like that, probably not even the majority of them. Imagine if you were still single: do you think you could have 'gamed' someone like Jessica Valenti and gotten the same results? LOL. Probably not, and neither could anybody else, no matter what their proficiency in Game.
And therein lies part of the danger of Game especially to young men. They're going to approach man-hating women completely blind to the dangers because they think the have an infallible system to draw on.
"I actually think with you, it's a difference of semantics."
Thank you for the compliment.
What I find interesting is that after being continually insulted by those who disagreed with me, all of a sudden those of the Manosphere are heading right back to where I said they would go: courage, justice, self-control and prudence (the Four Cardinal Virtues) leading to arete (excellence) leading to eudamonia (well-being, flourishing).
This is not something I made up. The concepts are least 2500 years old.
The Greeks (along with the Bible) said those who devote their lives to physical pleasure become degraded. The PUA types might want to pause and think about that.
Aha...
So, according, to Vox psychology is BS and all that is needed is observing human behavior.
Just like behaviorists do, which happen to be, um, psychologists.
Also the "just so " stories of evolutionary psychology are not the end all and be all of it, AP is a paradigm that helps to form hypotheses that can be rigorously tested.
Basically he is just sidestepping the fact that what he knows about game comes from people who used EP as a cornerstone right from the beginning.
I wasted about a thousand hours of my life studying this Austrian Economis / Praxeology thing, and I can tell you, it is crap.
It's like studying pure geometry, which is fine, but then going around the world and assuming anything that looks roughly triangular is a right angle triangle and thus using the Pythagoras Theorem on it.
The problem is that they study the concept of the market as a pure market, without interventions, which does not exist and never existed, and thus they would be able to predict the effect of the very first intervention in their imaginary world, but the cannot predict that in the real world with a million interventions, much of them meant to counter-balance previous ones, what will another one or removing a random one will cause. Besides that, they completely ignore aspects of the market like fear, or the poorer negotiating power of workers as opposed to employers, or that people must eat to live and thus the poor will accept any shitty deal.
All in all, it has a few good ideas, the time preference stuff is kinda useful, the ABCT may be true as well, and probably their warnings against inflation are all-OK, but still it is geometrical fantasyland.
As for mainstream Keynesianism, basically it rests on one idea: if workers have poor negotiation power, because they must eat tomorrow and have no savings, employers will underpay them, thus killing demand for their own products. This is roughly right. However, their answer to this, inflation or income redistribution is clearly problematic on many accounts. The rest of it is just pseudo-mathemathical bullshit.
Generally speaking economics as a science on the whole is not possible. No brain can predict what a billion brains will do.
True economics is actually just two very simple ideas. State interventions usually suck, the Right is correct in it. Being an employee, a wage slave sucks too, the Left is correct in it. A free market of small family enterprises, not big corporations, is ideal. If the only way to keep it small is to not keep it fully free but regulate it, do it bottom-up, not top-down: guilds, not the state. This is not really economics, more like economic common sense.
Beyond this and beyond basic incentive analysis, econ is mostly smoke and mirrors.
Shenpen said...
"I wasted about a thousand hours of my life studying this Austrian Economis / Praxeology thing, and I can tell you, it is crap."
Just curious, what did you read? Human Action?
@Eric
Off the top of my head, The Mystery Method (kind of the original game book) discusses how game is used in business, to meet new male friends, and was even developed as a way of getting better tips, not sex.
The reason that you think "no Game apologist has ever explained how Game can possibly function without an emphasis on idolatrizing female sexuality", is because you have not read that much, and no one but you particularly finds it to be an interesting question. I've never heard of it before, and I can dismiss it off hand as I know that the origins of game techniques was things like home to home sales and books on how to dominate a business meeting. These were retooled for meeting women, and work there to. So it's not just that you are wrong, it's that you're casually wrong. And it's not just that you are casually wrong, but that while you are casually wrong, you believe that you have the one epic question that has defeated all comers in some awesome struggle that exists only in your mind.
@Eric
You seem to think that any interaction women enjoy is "pedestalization". It's quite a stretch to believe that a man who's had enjoyable relations with women would think that way. I may be wrong, but it's a safer bet than most.
Everything you say is rooted in the assumption that women always have the upper hand, and the feminist assumption that all relations between the sexes are zero-sum open warfare. And you talk like you think you can't ever win.
It's also a truism - borne out by my experience - that straight feminists often respond very well to men who refuse to take their ideas seriously. Just keep it light and friendly and keep turning it into a joke. After a while they usually melt. If they don't, at least you didn't give them the validation of having their crazy ideas taken seriously.
I've argued with a lot of women. They aren't men. The factual content of the argument is a distant second to the social interaction, in pretty much all cases. Their favorite game is they try to get you to take them seriously, and lose. It's a game.
It's a boring game if they're not cute, though. For me at least. But I don't like people all that much.
I find this amusing because I, too, face a lot of religious hell about Game, only from the other side. As a card-carrying, tree-worshiping neo-pagan I catch it frequently from my feminist coreligionists who take moral issue with my stance on Game and such. Apparently all the equality of divine polarities in Wicca works best when the masculine portion is pure Beta. You give them a whiff of Alpha and all of a sudden you're an oppressor who pisses them off and dampens their panties at the same time.
Still, that doesn't shake my faith in my religion, just my flaky coreligionists. The very devout pagan men I know have embraced the paleopagan concepts of masculinity with a robust passion, calmly ignoring or engaging the very loud voices of the feminist majority and accepting that their perspectives on divinity and masculinity just ain't gonna match up with Rowena Silvermoon's pre-chewed popular feminist paganism. And that's . . . OK.
Similarly we get questions (and plenty of scriptural references) from our fellow Christian men who cannot understand why we cleave to an overtly-feminist religion when we are so clearly invested in our own sense of masculinity. How can we be Men and revere the Goddess . . . and put up with the crap our priestesses throw on a daily basis? It seems like pure idolatry (and in some cases it is, unapologetically) to bend knee to the Goddess in reverence while castigating the antics of her priestesses. Some of us seem like really manly dudes -- so why?
Part of the reason is a difference in the basic conceptions of divinity between the Abrahamic faiths and the wisdom traditions, but part of it is pure devotion to the religious ideal that holds the masculine and feminine divine principals (the God and the Goddess, to us wacky heathens) are less "equal" in the feminist sense and more subject to the equilibrium of their complementary nature, according to our observations and experience. Just because a bunch of whiny priestesses want to complain how we're hogging all of the masculine energy doesn't mean that we have to capitulate and concede the point. We have seized the opportunity to follow the majority of our ancestors and be the primal men we desire to be, without the consent, advice, or counsel of women. We have, in essence, applied a type of spiritual Game to our situation by ignoring the shit-tests of our female co-religionists. We remain no less devoted to the sacred nature and holy value of the feminine side of the life-force . . . we just figured we could do that without having someone with an XX chromosome standing around telling us what the Goddess really wants. We figured it out. Just like any good mother, she wants us to grow up to be good Men.
This is pertinent to practicing Christians in this discussion because whether or not Game is idolatry, immoral, amoral, ethical or fattening, it is effective. Rationalizing away reasons why you shouldn't use it because it might endanger your soul or lose you your Grace is a pointless endeavor. Game might be a sin, according to some Semetic cosmic ruler (one reason my religious peeps eschew a text-based religion), but no reasonable divinity would insist you live without the life-sustaining sexual elements implicit in human experience.
Or, in other words, "Sin boldly . . . but love God." --Martin Luther
My wife has a much better time grasping the biblical concepts of man, woman, marriage and, yes, game than some guys who keep trying to write this off in order to simply attempt to be right.... (Which is exactly why our marriage is, after fourteen years, the envy of most other people who even spend five minutes with us...)
Is not the book of Genesis the very warning to men about idolizing the pussy? Isn't that what 'game' theory is all about? Or did I miss something in seven years of following this?
Was not Adam the very first BETA male?
Was not Eve the very first "shit tester"?
Was not Adam putting the pussy on the pedestal when he just could not utter the word "NO"?
And that would just be within the context of being with a "wife"....
But what about the version of Genesis before the 'wifely Eve' narrative replaced the first adaptation featuring "Lilith"??
Was not Lilith the girl who had NPD? BPD? The single mom? The Cock Carousel rider?
It's really that simple.
For every guy who gets their life straightened out by trying to learn game, there is a woman who is trying to get HER answers by reading Dr. Phil. But both sexes have one thing in common... All the information gathered is OLD NEWS....Old Testament.
Please feel free to troll and discredit it all. I'll be back just as soon as I get unwrapped from my wife's legs.....
Blessings to all....
Nice try. Except that you simultaneously dismiss evolutionary biology as “ex post facto fairy tales” and psychology as “bullshit” and declare that asking “why” is irrelevant, and then turn around to employ action axioms “to describe the hows and whys of human intersexual attraction and mating behaviors.”
I have no quarrel with Creationism or modern belief in the supernatural that puts God on a pedestal,* but regardless of how you wish to frame your analysis of “human intersexual attraction and mating” you’re still doing biology and psychology. “Fitness testing” is a psychological principle applicable ONLY in the context of animals mating – in recognition of the natural fact that mental functions underpin individual and social behaviors.
Certainly, you can retreat to the “deductive reasoning” of Medieval Scholasticism – if only to get around the pesky empirical problems of Creationism – but your “action axioms” would have zero real-world value if their validity as deductive principles rested solely on a priori revelation. It is only through the empirical trial-and-error methods of the PUAs, through their countless approaches and rejections, and by their mindful observation of numberless ‘sensory’ experiences with women and “testing in the field” - rather than by theory or pure logic - that these particular ‘axioms’ of Game have been accepted. In other words, an untested or non-falsifiable axiom is scarcely more than ‘wishful thinking’, no better than a feminist slogan like “equality,” which is nowhere to be observed and validated in the wild.
Ultimately, this is not to say that Vox, Dalrock and other Christian apologists, including you, have nothing to offer to those of us who base our understanding of the natural world on empirical observation and testing. On the contrary, even non-practicing PUAs can use previous experimental results in order to engage in reasoned model building and inquiry. It is disingenuous to claim, however, that your “action axioms” can refer to anything besides biology and psychology. Finally, it should be clear that if and when an ‘axiom’ is not confirmed by the PUA experience, the axiom should be relinquished, not the experience.
* [Note: I’d rather place God on a pedestal than man (socialism) or woman (feminism).]
but regardless of how you wish to frame your analysis of “human intersexual attraction and mating” you’re still doing biology and psychology.
Rejecting Ev-Psych does not mean rejecting the validity and veracity of biology or true science. You have to remember that the premise of Ev-Psych is that men and women do what what do, because we 'evolved' that way through the process of natural selection.
I got no truck with making the empirical observation that women are hypergamous - they want to mate with the best possible genetics partner for their offspring. That's a biological observation of not just humans, but all life on the planet.
In differentiating between Praxeology and Evolutionary Psychology, the argument is not about the facts of biology, but whether God created us that way, or we evolved from monkeys to be that way.
"Rejecting Ev-Psych does not mean rejecting the validity and veracity of biology or true science. You have to remember that the premise of Ev-Psych is that men and women do what what do, because we 'evolved' that way through the process of natural selection."
And again, that is the paradigm.
Based on that paradigm you form hypotheses.
Those can be tested, if they are falsifiable.
To say it as bluntly as possible, whether someone agrees with the paradigm means jack shit.
Whether the hypothesis is falsifiable and stands the tests thrown at it is all that matters.
Keoni,
OT: In light of your posts about the Boy Scouts, I'm curious what you think of Trail Life USA and the American Heritage Girls.
http://www.traillifeusa.com/
http://www.ahgonline.org/
They're new, started by former boys and girls scouts who left the traditional organizations due to the politically correct changes.
Pisco:
I don't know why I waste time arguing with Gamecocks, but here it goes:
"It's quite a stretch to believe that any man who's had enjoyable relations with women would think that way."
Mostly because I don't think that way, Dumbass. But a nice try at Shaming Language, anyway.
"Everything you say is rooted in the assumption that women have the upper hand."
And in a feminist society, they don't?
"...and the feminist assumption that all sexual relations are zero-sum open warfare."
That's the assumption that both Gamesters and Feminists make. What I'm arguing is that situation isn't normal. As proof of that, look at the rest of your own post: Gaming is all about competition; i.e. zero-sum open warfare. You can't separate Game from the FEMINIST idea of sexual competitiveness.
"It's also a truism...that straight feminists often respond well to men who don't take their ideas seriously."
This attitude is exactly why Game is positively dangerous for men to engage in. There are lots of guys rotting in prison under false accusations precisely because they didn't believe feminists really hate men, or that feminists don't really mean what they say.
"I don't really like people all that much."
Which is why Game appeals to you and men like you, because it excludes love as one of its elements.
One question for you so-called Christian Gamers:
Do you spend more time trying to sell Christians on Game? Or more time trying to sell Gamers on Christ?
I think we know the answer to that.
If you are preaching proper biblical manhood, you are flying Christs flag.
If you are preaching Game, you are flying Roissy's flag.
It is that simple. Pick a fucking side. Stop trying to be a "Christian advocate for Game". Ain't gonna happen. Its like saying you are "fucking for virginity", or "kicking ass for pacifism". Shit or get off the pot.
Booch:
No, it's not simply me who believes this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwwHk3MymkA&feature
The whole marketing approach is fundamentally flawed as relationship tool, as the link above clearly illustrates.
I have found that "game" is useful in my marriage. While not perfect, things have been better in my marriage. Game in a Pick up setting is sex worship,not female worship,or Goddess worship.Game works precisely because of not allowing a woman to be on a pedastal. In marriage that is what you want, to be head of your household without apology,or explanation. Understanding women is just a tool,that can be used for good,or bad.
@Eric
Thats it? You believe that anyone has any awareness of you're burning question because it's "clearly illustrated" in a youtube movie that has less than 2000 views (most of which presumably come from the posters mom watching on a loop). Nothing you said, or that was said in the video breaches my casual dismissal.
Beyond that, the fact that you believe that movie was either logical, or even coherent clearly shows that you have a neurotic need to dismiss game.
Point 1 of the video: all pua culture divides men in to a binary system. Of the top five game blogs, 2 of them explicitly have much more granular systems. The others to my knowledge have no explicit system.
Point 2 of the video: PUA REQUIRES adherents to go out and approach women. Well that's just a naked assertion backed up by nothing more than the fevered dreams of the anti-pua crowd. Vox Day explicitly states that his interaction with game theory is purely intellectual. Alternatively, show me one place where vox day, heartiste, roosh, athol kay, the rational male, or our host has stated that you must approach or interact with women, that failing to do so means that you are "out of the cult" or whatever.
Point 3: to interact with something is to allow it to control you. I honestly feel a little silly addressing this its so stupid, but it was also the central point of his argument. That is not the normal definition of control. You could define it that way, but it would be stupid, because it also means to an equal extent that pua's control women, because the women are interacting with the men. It also means that I control Eric (you might say that Eric idolizes me) as he is interacting with me.
Everything else in the video seems to be built from these 3 remarkably false premises.
So to summarize, you justify your belief that you have the one epic question that has been plaguing the game community by linking to a youtube video that has been view less than 2000 times over the course of a year and a half. And beyond that the video does not even include your question, only some parallel thoughts. And even if we ignore all that, I address your concern, showing it to be casually false. Nothing you have said or done has countered that.
Buddy, any one of these points is enough for you to be considered delusional. I'll trust our host that you may have had some useful things to say on other topics, holy hell have you lost your ability to think when it comes to game.
You lost me at "ascribed Creationist Christian"
Why is your business degree useless?
Game simply attempts to show men how to get women. Women are the prize.
This is posted in reference to the comment third comment on the topic titled "Team Woman"
----------------
In a new approach to the same dead horse:
*** Women often "fitness test" or "shit test" men. Men interested in mating with a woman need to learn how to recognize when she does this. When he ascertains that in fact she is attempting to fitness test him, there are several known responses that other men have employed with varying degrees of success, such as "agree and amplify."***
Here is a differerent interpretation of this behavior.
When the female's drive for rebellion against her established role gains dominance, the relevant behavior is displayed. Her drive to fulfill her role's obligations is not allowing the drive for rebellion to display itself, the drive to fulfill her role's obligation is being subjugated. When the male displays behavior which thwarts the drive for rebellion's attempt, the female doesn't willingly or conciousely subjugate the drive for rebellion to her drive to fulfill her role's obligations, the rebellion drive is weakened and the drive to fulfill her role's obligations becomes dominate.
Contrast this with your interpretation that the behavior is a "fitness test;" The term itself is full of assumptions. First, that the female is able to determine fitness. Second, that the rebellious behavior is a means, not an ends... merely a test.
Your interpretation of the behavior is similar to an antelope teaching its young to run from the lion until the lion is tired and gives up. The adult antelope then explains the lion is merely "testing" the antelope.
It is harmful because the term itself will automatically conjure a conception that is unrelated to reality. Again, “fitness test” assumes that the female is the “judge” and is capable of determining “fitness”.
The relevant conceptions of “judge” are:
adjudicator: a person, sometimes one of several, appointed to assess entries or performances in a competition and decide who wins
somebody giving informed opinion: somebody who can give an informed opinion on something
The relevant conceptions of “fitness” are:
suitability: suitability of somebody or something for a particular purpose
The relevant conception of “test” is:
A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence, quality, or truth of something
Again, the behavior you refer to as a “fitness” test is not a “procedure for critical evaluation.”
Most importantly, the term itself implies that the female is “judging.” That she is capable of “judging.”
----------------
At bottom, Vox is a Lutheran (maybe he admits this). He believes in "sola scriptura" (Scripture is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine" - from wikipedia), but does not like the neccessary outcome. Instead of viewing "sola scriptura" as a neccessary response to an inept priesthood, he elevates it to a good, in itself.
"Game simply attempts to show men how to get women. Women are the prize."
Ugh. People, game does not need to be about women. Here is a video of Ronald Reagan using a codified game technique in a debate. Sex was not his motivation.
Ok, game does not have to be about getting women, but most men think about it in this way and try to use it, in that way.
Hidden within game (when chasing after women) is the idea that the woman is always right, the man needs to make himself attractive by adopting alpha traits. In other words make yourself likeable to women. Change the way you dress, speak and act to get those perfect women who are always shit testing or trying to catch you out to see if you are worthy of her. You have to behave as if you do not care and are indifferent but you still play the game hoping to get her to bed.
Women are far from perfect, sometimes they behave badly, as a man you either take her as she is or reject her, you do not let them behave badly with you and then you give them your time. As a man you need to either walk away or tell them that you will not accept that type of nonsense from your partner or do both. It is simple, no need for game.
Islam teaches men to treat their women with kindness and humor. Traditionally Muslim wen keep their maiden names after marriage and they have their own financial accounts they do not give up ownership of their property or business to the men. Women however are not required to cook or provide for the family, if they do it is their choice and an act of charity. The man is responsible for food, clothing, shelter. The woman should be grateful to the man though it is recognisteal from a woman and call it 'charity.'
@Keoni
Since you deleted comments on the post entitled "Team Woman" can you edit my post in this topic to read "This is posted in reference to the first comment on the topic titled 'Team Woman'"
Sorry Diff T, when it comes to comment systems, Blogspot really sucks. I can only delete comments, not edit them. That is the ONE feature I really wish I could use from WordPress that Blogspot does not offer.
Have a look at this which shows how PUA or Game can be harmful
David DeAngelo Undermines Your Progress
http://lifestylejourney.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/david-deangelo-undermines-your-progress.html
Banksters and the ruling elites want to create docile consumers and workers who will not cause problems for them. They do this through divide and rule, get men and women to conflict, families are de-stabilized etc.
To overcome this, both men and women need to become aware and to behave in ways that oppose the bankers. Men and women working as a team, raising children that will refuse to become enslaved to the banksters rule. Whole communities united and against the destructive centralizing state. They bypass state laws, use their own common laws and everyone is either united or outside.
Islam teaches men to treat their women with kindness and humor. Traditionally Muslim wen keep their maiden names after marriage and they have their own financial accounts they do not give up ownership of their property or business to the men. All Muslims who have a certain maximum level of wealth are obligated to pay Zakaat ( a charity of 2.5%)to certain groups and people in their local community. Islam is against Usury or money lending and charging interest and has many detailed laws regulating trade and commerce so it is avoided. The married woman pays her own Zakaat and is responsible for her own wealth.
Women however are not required to cook or provide for the family, if they do it is their choice and an act of charity.
The man is responsible for food, clothing, shelter. The woman should be grateful to the man though it is recognized that women are generally ungrateful...they need to be gently reminded or educated to be ethical beings.
Islamic law resembles the british common law, where jurists discover new laws within the framework given by their religion, and there are differing opinions available. There are no victimless crimes.
Islam can be used to abuse and tyrannize people, when it becomes a 'state religion'. It can also be used by men to control and abuse women. It can be diluted to accommodate usury and the criminal state.
Ibn Khaldun, a Arab sociologist before the modern world theorised that dynastic rule moved in historical cycles, that when the dynasty in power over ruled, over taxed and became decadent, the people on the margins of society (the rugged and independent) he called them the 'nomads'if they united under a leader and a religion would grow in power and take control.
Applying this theory to our world, we can see that the poor in the cities and on the margins can create a new community and unite. They could easily overcome the decadent centralized state and fiat currency. We could start using gold and silver coins to conduct our trade, we could pay zakaat to people in our communities with one leader and we could overcome the state.
Post a Comment