Wednesday, October 24, 2007

We Are More Than Survival and Replication

It's been said by certain seduction community "gurus", that humans basically function by surviving and replicating.

The pitch: "If I can't replicate with a beautiful woman then my genes will be mercilessly weeded out of existence (therefore teach me how to replicate)", cha-ching.

There is a lot of wrong in the above statement.

For instance, there's this notion of 'beautiful woman'. What we perceive as beautiful is the result of lots of makeup and the right clothes. Women spend all this effort creating this illusion and you spend all this effort chasing it. Beautiful women are simply pretty women with lots of makeup on. So the HB10 is all in your head.

Now let's talk about Survival and Replication. As it stands, the S&R model is a flawed premise wrapped by scientific half-truths to make it seem valid. The argument by proponents is that S&R is inter-twined in human existence. That's like saying the same about food and water. True enough but a gross simplification. But it allows a lot of the blanks to be filled in with whatever makes the most money. Unfortunately, it feeds off the self-esteem and bank account of those men who have no real masculine role models.

S&R also shifts focus away from our true potential. We are inventors, explorers, musicians, artists, scientists, engineers, etc. If we were simply S&R then we would be willing to dig in the dirt all day and cat call girls as they walk by.

This model, like most other models taught to attract women, puts women on a pedestal. Every step and routine followed is like adding one more gem to her "crown".

It is said that seducing women is a skill learned like any other, and that guys who are naturally good with women have all these skills internalized. This so-called "internalization" is a way of saying that some men have to learn what comes naturally to others. But if this is true then why do Naturals balk at the use of methods? Because in their world it makes no sense to be analytical and try to "problem solve" their way into a woman's pants. It's just not cool and places too much darn importance on the issue to even consider it. It completely goes against the carefree vibe and just having fun.

But... what if this stuff ACTUALLY works, you might be asking? It doesn't, not directly anyway. The only times it seems to work is with guys who come out of their shell when using the "method". It gets them talking and feeling good about themselves because they now have a "way to get the girl". It's a placebo effect. But it's only temporary success. Eventually, their identity breaks down, and they end up feeling worse than before.

The methods work best for in-field instructors as they take their "entourage" of students out on the town. This by itself is attractive to women as it gives the instructors a perceived rank in their eyes. So in this context, the instructors socialize using their "method", act non-needy (also codified as part of THEIR method), and voila, attract women in the process. And this sells. It's brilliant. But you can save yourself lots of bad information and $$$ by going out with your friends, socializing without being needy, and you will get the same result. It's MUCH easier to BE non-needy then go through 20 steps to make you look non-needy, don't you think? It avoids inner game problems and you're not lying to yourself.

Meeting women is not a skill the way welding or cooking is a skill. It is a natural process and adding artificial difficulty to it will work against you. Furthermore, when you are PUSHING for an outcome, women will sense this and make it more difficult for you. So the more you try and apply effort & skill the more they resist, meaning that to SUCCEED you have to apply effort & skill in a way that makes it look like you are not applying effort & skill. But what's the point of that? Just chill out and treat them normally.

9 comments:

Paul said...

I cannot believe that I found this blog!! Its speaks the tructh about male/female interactions!

Keep it up!!

Anonymous said...

You know nothing. You might think you know something, but you know nothing. I read some of your other stuff, and the more I read, the more I saw that you know nothing. If we were S&R then we would dig dirt and cat call at girls? We are more than S&R? We are inventors, musicians, etc? Idiot? Read The Mating Mind. Read The Moral Animal. Just read something before you blabber about things you don't even understand. I won't be coming on here again. Peace.

John said...

Well I guess I hit a nerve and the troll in you is upset. And the fact that you resort to name calling and personal put-downs tells me that you are close minded and not even open to debate. So yes, goodbye, and good riddance.

Michael said...

Well wait a second.. don't we have jobs as engineers, scientists, or whatever else, in order to survive? Why do we have houses? Why do we get money to buy these houses? Why not just live as a bum on the street, scraping the cents and having half a meal a day? Having a job will increase our chances of survival, and will improve our quality of life. If our quality of life is improved, then our reproduction will probably be better because women will be attracted to us more than to men who live on the street. Also, I read a book about evolutionary psychology in school and the author said that we are "survival and reproduction" machines. Not the same words, but the same idea. He said that we get artistic skills in order to attract mates, and this is true because I can tell you that every time I bring one of my female friends home, play the guitar and sing to her, she suddenly wants to be more than a fried. I think we are survival and reproduction/replication machines. There are a lot of evolutionary psychology books about it, and it does make perfect sense!

John said...

^^^^ These things certainly do increase our chances for attracting a mate but that does not mean that our primary motivation for doing these things should be for getting laid. Now, some guys will take certain jobs and hobbies to increase their chances of getting laid, but I think they're in the minority. But those that excel at certain jobs and hobbies most certainly have a deep passion for them and the promise of "getting laid more" has little or no bearing on that.

True excellence in a field can only be a result of passion, aptitude, and hard work for that field, and the promise of money, fame, or sex is hardly a contributing factor to that. Although it can be a nice byproduct of it.

If having a job in whatever field is necessarily linked to survival and replication then the level of performance in that field must also be directly proportional to survivability and how much sex you get as a result. So the better you are at your job, the better your chances of survival and the more sex you can get. But then why would the highest levels of performance in a field only be a result of passion, aptitude, and hard work for that field? The increased survivability potential and the promise of sex is just not a contributing factor here. These two things might increase as a secondary result but they are not what drives the performance.

For example, being an artist, inventor, scientist etc. is not strictly done just to make getting food and surviving easier, but because that is interesting and intellectually stimulating. And in addition, any resultant extra sex (reproduction) is a nice byproduct of that, which tends to exert selective pressure on the men who have the intelligence and creativity to do these things. So in this sense, yes, intelligence and creative ability is linked to increased sex likelihood, in general.

But it's still an oversimplification in the seduction community that we are S&R machines because it leaves out the stand-alone value of our creative and intellectual interests which is not borne out of a desire for more sex (or better survival), but a desire for creative and intellectual stimulation for its own sake. In fact, there have been men in history who intentionally never reproduced but who were geniuses in their field nonetheless (e.g. Nikola Tesla, and Isaac Newton). So you can't say that they did what they did just to increase the likelihood of getting sex.

Anonymous said...

we are s and r, you've based your whole identity ( ego in buddhism, read about it) and these 2 things. we are driven by fear, you may not know this because you haven't thought about it thoroughly. everything that a human does with his ego is based on s and r. fast cars, beautiful houses, girls, fancy stuff, fancy job, fancy clothes, learning stuff, being alpha (which means ultimate chance for s and r) it's all running away from pain. Every religion on earth is based on running away from pain. now that the consumer society has fonud a way to instantly give people a good feeling about themselves religion is no longer needed. put the same problem still exist, we all are afraid of suffering, of being not good enough, of finding no mating partner. If you disagree, you're telling yourself ur not afraid, and thats cool, go join the 95% who are eager to justify their own bad behaviour by making excuses so they don't have to discuss the core of their identity.

Anonymous said...

The author of this article is extremely ignorant and idealistic, believing he has risen above the basic premise of life; to exist.

Anonymous said...

I'd just like to say that the two poorly written comments above aimed at discrediting the author make no sense what so ever, and are more a less a repeat of the same bullshit we keep hearing from PUA apologists. We need women, they make us who we are, its all in science blah blah blah. PUA and religion seem to have a good thing in common as both exists to relieve people of the various insecurities they have in life, but at the same time fill our heads with so much delusional bullcrap people loose their ability for objective thinking.

Unknown said...

I suspect the we are just SR machines as just beliefs. Some men became celibate and lived in monasteries.

Some men cannot have children, some me and women do not want to have children.

These 'just so' explanations that scientists give us sound plausible but only if we accept the premise of their theories in the first place.

SR can explain rape, SR can explain why we find shit smelly apparently so we do not eat it and harm ourselves...

If we are SR machines why do some of us commit suicide? Why do we get negative thoughts telling us to destroy ourselves?