Reactions To Novaseeker and a Response to Obsidian

I wanted to specifically address the issue of whether knowledge and interaction with women bring unique insights and wisdom. I will work off of some posts Novaseeker has made at three blogs on the subject.  

 From Chuck’s blog

I agree that throwing out women wholesale is not the best approach. I do think there are some people in the MRA-sphere who are inexperienced with women and so on. However, many of us are NOT inexperienced with women, have been married to women, fathered children with women and so on. To paint all of us with one brush (and I know you had a tiny disclaimer in there in a wall of text) is dumb. Inaccurate and dumb.

Agree completely. My only question to Nova, (a wise, well read, excellent writer and thinker and really smart guy, someone who I suspect has more wisdom than I do I might add) is does he think he gained wisdom and valuable insight from being married? 

One more question…

If all MRAs had little or no personal experience with women would their collective wisdom be greater or smaller?

I think its obvious.  Men like Welmer, Nova, and Elusive Wapiti bring more wisdom to the table with regard to mens issues not less.  Sure I can speak to marriage and divorce, but not with the insights and authority they can.  After all, I’ve never been married or divorced.

But the more important problem with your post is that it equates knowledge of relating to women with “wisdom”. That’s inane. Yes, knowledge of interacting with women is nice to have if you want to interact with women, as most of us do. But does it make us wise? Gosh, that’s one of the silliest things I’ve ever read. Wisdom follows from many things, but understanding how women work and how to relate to them is not one of them.

First I’ll state that many experiences in life bring wisdom. Especially endeavors that test virtue and resolve or require hard work and discipline.  Let me use a few examples.  Lets take two typical 30-year-old guys.  Identical in every way.  IQ, values, upbringing, physical attributes, job, education…blah blah blah…except for one thing.  One guy served 2 tours in a war zone and the other guy has zero military experience.  Who would probably possess more wisdom?

How about the same two guys, but one of them had successfully battled cancer?

How bout the same two guys but one has 10 friends and the other has 0? 

How about if one of them is married and has 2 children?

The last example is what I am getting at.  I submit that everything being equal, the married with kids guy is probably going to have more wisdom than the single guy.  I say this as a single guy myself.  Living with another human being, and all it entails, bring valuable insights.  Children within marriage, (necessitates interaction and some understanding of women) bring wisdom.

How bout the same two guys, but one of them has had 5 girlfriends and the other has had zero?

I believe, again, everything equal, the guy with 5 girlfriends is going to probably have more wisdom.  Relationships, great or terrible, provide keen insights into human interaction.  I know I’ve learned from them.  I learned a lot about myself.  Both my good and bad qualities were more easily recognized.

What I’m trying to get at is that HUMAN interaction, for most people, brings wisdom.  I tend to think a car salesman would generally be more wise in the ways of the world than a guy who works the graveyard shift at a warehouse. The former, if he has any curiosity or self awareness,would be able to offer all sorts of tidbits and observations on the human condition which the latter probably couldn’t. 

Human interaction doesn’t just bring knowledge, it can bring wisdom as well.  I know some not so well educated types who possess much greater wisdom than the college educated ivory tower intellectuals wandering around.  The former’s insights come from human interaction, not reading. (Reading can of course provide wisdom though.)  I think this is obvious and I don’t see why interaction with women would be any different.

Luckily, all things aren’t equal.  For instance, I have two married friends.  One is incredibly insightful while the other is as dull as a rusty butter knife.  Even though the latter has many experiences I can’t relate to, I consider myself wiser than he is. My other experiences, taken as a whole, trump his.

It is also possible to be wise in some areas and not others.  I know a leftist like this.  In matters of business and personal relationships he is dynamite.  When talking politics he has all the insight of a 10-year-old girl.  Trite wouldn’t even begin to describe it.

One of my best friends has very little experience with women. Giving him advice on the subject is, for the most part, futile.  When it comes to the ladies, he sucks.  That being said, he is one of the most stand up guys I have ever known.  I’d go to the gates of hell for him.  He is also really astute in other areas.  He is deep and philosophical.  I value his opinions.  With women I have more wisdom, but on other things, he does.  I also would say,on balance, he is more valuable to society than I am despite my advantage with women.

One last example.  A friend of mine from years ago was solidly an alpha.  Going out with him always meant getting stuck with the second best.  In some cases, if he was feeling particularly greedy, the third best.  Despite his ability with women( and his awareness of the reason for his success) he wasn’t all that profound in other areas.  I had him beat.  Another friend of ours, completely inexperienced with women, was Benjamin Franklin compared to him. 

From my blog

Some fairly fine philosophers, theologians, scientific and artistic geniuses were celibates, or more or less celibate. The notion that “unless you’re getting laid, you’re a failure at everything else in life, and everything you say is worthless” is therefore beyond stupid — it doesn’t reflect historical reality. It’s dismissive and divisive and is precisely the kind of carping that we men of various strands need to avoid.

Agree on all counts. Particularly the last sentence.  I have no desire to call out anyone’s chosen lifestyle.

 From Ferdinand’s Blog

The idea that a man’s relative success (or lack thereof) with women is the fundamental measure of his manhood…

Well I guess in animal terms it could be argued that way.  I don’t think, (or at least really hope not) humans are solely animals though.  I would hope I have as much value as Silvio Berlusconi.  Heh. Seriously though, I agree with him.  I think integrity, honor, and decency are much more vital to being a man than how many pussies a guy has plundered.  Ahh, if only integrity and honor made the gina tingle.

, or, even worse, the most important area of his life

In a perfect world I believe marriage and raising children would be the most important thing in most men’s lives.  Again, I say this as a single guy with no kids.  Even in that perfect world though there would be many single men who contribute mightily to society.  In our far from perfect world, it would be a bad idea to blindly follow the marriage/children model.  Conditions on the ground have changed and men should act accordingly. 

If that means the pursuit of a wife or even a girlfriend isn’t the most important thing,  fine by me.  Plenty of ways to contribute to society, grow as a person, and live a contented life. 

is precisely the kind of over-reaching extremism I criticized over at Chuck’s and at Gantt’s. I am a supporter of men learning Game, as you know, but sentiments like that one are just plain silly.

I’m not sure if he is addressing my position specifically, or ideas he has an issue with in general.  If it’s the former I will just say that I sure don’t feel extreme.

To sum up…  

Relationships and marriage generally bring wisdom.

There is more than one path to wisdom.

Marriage and children are vital for a strong and vibrant civilization.

Every man being married and having children is not vital for a strong and vibrant civilization.

A mans inherent value isn’t predicated on his ability with women.

Success with women, although I believe it usually brings wisdom, is morally neutral.

There is more than one path to being a decent man who lived a life worth living.

 

Obsidian, a thoughtful and effective Game advocate left this comment at Ferdinand’s yesterday.  I thought I would respond because I disagree with him, both in tone and substance.

Now, before you or anyone else starts howling, lol, lemme also say, that I find the MRA cause to be legit-I just think that some of their tactics, of which bashing Game is one, is woefully offbase. 

Too broad a brush.  Most MRAs seem to be fine with Game.  If I am right, then it is hardly one of “their” tactics.  I have no problem if he wants to defend Game from the few MRAs (or anyone else for that matter) who attack it.  I do agree that a few MRAs were offbase with regard to their criticism of Game.

If these guy are really serious about making structural changes, again I say they should be involved in the political process, lobbying their Senators and Congressmen, among other things.

Who says they aren’t?  I have all sorts of passionate positions, but I’ll be honest, I don’t email congressmen.  Why? Because its largely ineffective. MRA is in its infancy. Changing as many hearts and minds as possible is about the only effective strategy right now in my view.  Politicians aren’t leaders, at best they are followers.

Now take Glenn Sacks-he’s an MRA that I got mad respect for. He doesn’t spend his time breaking on Playas-instead, he devotes his time to doing just what I said above-lobbying lawmakers, bringing awareness to MRA issues and getting facetime to make his case before a wider public. If all these “opponents” of Game and supposed champions of MRA, HBD and Western Civ are really serious, all they need do is look to Glenn Sacks-he’s shown them the way. They don’t even need to reinvent the wheel.

Agreed.  Most MRAs would agree as well I suspect.  I know I certainly like his style.

 Now personally, I don’t see the MRA movement making any major legal/political headway anytime soon, and for many of the reasons you’ve written about Nova, among other bloggers.

Agreed.  So what?  I write and discuss all sorts of things that aren’t making headway.  In many cases, causes I hold dear are becoming less realistic as time goes on.  If anything, its fun to rag on feminists.  Do you oppose Roissy when he does this?

 Simply put-if you buy into Evo-Psych, and I do-Men are too inherently competitive to cohesive work together to bring about change ala the NOW mold. Not. Gonna. Happen. We’re just not wired that way.

Largely agree.  NOW and other leftist ideas will crumble under their own weight if given enough time.  To the extent that a mens rights movement can speed up the process, all the better.  Should Glenn Sacks, a man just complimented, retire?

 Which is why Game is in many ways the perfect solution, because it’s all individually focused. One doesn’t need expensive lobbying efforts or laws repealed and others passed-all one needs is the right material, a dedication to learn, and a desire to change.

Largely agree.  Game is the micro to MRAs macro.  Game is not a solution because their are no solutions. Game helps though.

Ahh, but you see, that’s the trick-alot of guys out there DO NOT wanna change ANYTHING about themselves. Game is really about growth and self improvement, and many Men are afraid of Change. And again, like Chuck Ross said, the Human Mind can and will concoct all kinds of stuff, all kinds of defences as to why one is a failure. As we all know, Women do this all the time. Now, it seems, so too, do the Menfolk.

Yes, some men don’t work enough at self improvement.  Some are even bitter.  Some blame women for their failures.  Call 60 minutes.  How this invalidates MRA efforts is beyond me.

 I disagree with your view above-a Man who cannot get laid is a sad sight to behold, there’s simply no getting around that fact. Mind you, I’m not talking about the King of All Playas here-just being able to simply get laid with a decent looking chick every now and then. If a guy can’t make that happen, in my book, just about everything about him is seriously suspect.

This is nonsense. Just about EVERYTHING about him is suspect?  I can think of plenty of guys I know, who almost certainly don’t get laid, who are good, decent men.  A 60 year old guy that works at a gas station should be viewed with suspicion because he doesn’t get laid?  Please.  How bout a religious guy that sticks to his principles and avoids pre marital sex?  How bout a guy in a wheelchair?  Really, I love Game and I love Roissy, but man there is more to life than fucking. 

Another thing.  Men tend to gravitate to what they are good at.  Naturals, or men who run Game with ease, will spend more time and effort trying to get laid. 

At some point, for a guy that lacks the natural talents, both mentally and physically, Game and chasing women lose their luster when compared to other pursuits. Lets get real here. Some men, no matter how much they try will always suck with women.  This fact doesn’t make them worthless human beings worthy of suspicion.  They might just accomplish more than the guy out chasing tail all night too.

I gotta tell ya Nova, I’ve never seen so many sorry excuses for Men before in my life.

Exaggerate much?  He could give me his best example of poor MRA behavior and I could counter with all the punks, thugs, criminals and vermin I see everyday in the news.  I’d say they are more “sorry” than the most bitter MRA he could find.

 I mean that. Guys who throw up every excuse under the Sun as to why they refuse to make any changes in their lives for the better, talking about all this abstract, big macro shit as if they gonna be able to solve it-Ha!

Self Improvement and “big macro shit” aren’t mutually exclusive.  Also, men can be brilliant and insightful in one area and terrible in another.  The latter doesn’t negate the former. If I think an MRA is bitter with regard to his personal dealings with women, fine.  It won’t stop me from finding insight into other things he talks about.  Everyone has their biases and weaknesses.  By the way, solutions don’t exist. Only mitigations.  I’m not dreaming of Utopia and most MRAs that I read aren’t either.

 Not buying it one minute. I know the deal. These guys are more than merely afraid. They’re cowards.

I think Obsidian is emoting. I’m sure it feels good.  Way to vague.  Who are “these” guys? 

 Style, before he became such, had more balls, and is actually doing more to change the world, than the whole lot of these Keyboard Warriors, there I’ve said it, and I mean it. Because they can’t even change themselves to meet a nice looking lady for a night-how in the hell are they gonna “save” Western Civ? As we say in the hood, “Nigga, puh-leaaasseee…”

Game has plenty of “keyboard” warriors in their own right.  This fact doesn’t delegitimize Game.  Most MRAs are pretty aware of the long odds they face in “saving” Western Civ.  I agree on Style making worthwhile contributions though.  What this has to do with another man choosing to fight on another front, I have no idea.

So, no, Nova, with all due respect, and I embrace you as a brother, on this one we just gonna have to agree to disagree. All this stuff about MRA, and HBD, and Western Civ, and Conservative this, and Libertarian that, all of that jazz ain’t nothing but elaborate, High IQ smoke and mirrors covering up the simple fact that A, Game WORKS, B, that those who rail against it most don’t have it and C, they’re either too afraid or too angry/bitter or both, to actually try to change their own lives for the better. And I for one am sick and tired of listening to grownassed Men behave like low class Bitches.

Again, Game and MRA aren’t mutually exclusive. Perhaps I should provide a personal example.  Obsidian, I get laid.  I’m not G Manifesto or Roissy, but I do alright.  It’s possible I’m even more successful than you. Who knows. I enjoy the company of women. I’m not bitter or angry(sometimes I should probably be more angry).  I also consider myself a Conservative/ libertarian MRAer.  I have no problem extolling the virtues of Game, using it, and pointed out injustice in our legal system and gynocentric cultural bias. I’ll also submit that learning Game should open a mans eyes even more to injustice and cultural decline not less.

Either you think Game and Mens Rights Advocacy are basically incompatible, or you are using a sledgehammer when a fly swatter would do. 

 You don’t know me, but I’ve been reading you now for close to a year. I often agree with you.  I think you provide valuable insights and a good check on some of the things said around the Roissysphere. You seem like a truly decent and good man.  Just want to let you know that I respect you.  If you read this, I’d like to hear your response.

Advertisements

15 Comments

Filed under alpha, american decline, american women, beta male, female nature, feminism, game, Mens Issues

15 responses to “Reactions To Novaseeker and a Response to Obsidian

  1. Gantt:

    I didn’t know Obsidian was defending me. It looks like its me, him, Prime, and Roosh in one corner, and all the other MRAs in the other haha. Roissy – as per usual (and smartly) has refrained from weighing in on the debate.

    Anyway, to preface my comments, let me say that I don’t think you’re a guy that makes excuses. Neither are Novaseeker or Welmer or Ferdinand. You guys have obviously experienced things in your life – with women – that has shaped your worldview. For whatever reason you have taken to MRA, you seem to have backed it up with rigid intellectual thought. I respect that your beliefs are well-founded.

    However, there are MRA types (and again, I sincerely regret not delineating between virgins by choice and MRAs like you guys who have legitimate reasons for being so) who take on the MRA cause by default. They haven’t come to it out of experience or hardship. They’ve come to it out of *lack of experience and hardship*.

    This all started when Roosh called out virgins, Pro Male called out Roosh, and I called out Pro Male for saying something to the effect that all the information he needs to know about women can be observed and gleaned from a distance. He made the inane analogy that one can learn the nature of heroin by observation rather than using it.

    I called him on this. This is BS. You can’t learn *anything* about women just by second-hand gossip. You aren’t emotionally invested. You don’t get heartbroken or hurt. You don’t feel the exhiliration and happiness of love. There are so many emotions that one misses out on that help shape a man when he has never (or rarely) experienced the companionship of a woman.

    These experiences can have positive or negative outcomes, but that’s irrelevant.

    Again, I painted too strong a caricature of MRAs. Perhaps I shouldn’t have used MRA in my title. That would have saved a lot of argument. But either way, my focus was men who seem to despise women despite not having had any experience with them. They jump on the bandwagon of hatred against women and say stupid things like “don’t have sex with American girls or you’ll get STDs”. Completely pointless jibberish like that.

    The seperate issue is whether or not a virgin is wise. I should have stated my thesis thusly: “All else being equal, a man who has experienced female companionship and relationship is wiser than a virgin (or man who has very limited experience).”

    I should have also qualified it by saying that the older the man is while still virgin the less wise or *connected* he will be.

    Dare I use the movie “40 Year Old Virgin” to point out how naive and utterly stupid Steve Carrel’s character was. He knew about electronics and toys but that was it. He was so out of touch with the world that he barely existed. He was a joke.

    The lack of wisdom may be associated with the fact that a virgin hasn’t experienced many other things that life has to offer. He’s likely very conservative or flat-out scared of the world. This limits experience and wisdom collection. There’s also the bias towards being a “loser” in the sense that he has the stench of failure on him. I hate to be harsh, but we all know these types of guys. They are so scared that they fail to launch. When they fail to launch they attach themselves to the nearest outlet that provides solace for their failure. For virgin males in a gynocentric world, MRA is one of those outlets. Not that David Alexander is a strict MRA, but he is one of these people that constantly makes excuses and forms some distorted reality so that he doesn’t even have to fucking try. That’s sad, and that’s the type of thing that Roosh, Obsidian, and I find repulsive and sad. For that reason, for those virgins or one-bangers, we make our statements.

    So here – on your blog – I’m backing slightly away from my original argument. There isn’t a *direct* and *complete* correlation between experience with women and overall wisdom. I kind of tried to say that in my original post by pointing out that men like Mystery who devote all of their energy to such pursuits are likely just as unwise as any virgin. But the experience with women is correlated with many other things that makes a man a man. Without experience with women, he’s missing *something*.

    I’ll leave it at that. Thank you.

    • Hi Chuck,

      It’s funny because I feel like Olympia Snowe or Colin Powell in this debate. It’s not something I’m used to.

      I guess my main motivation is to argue for
      game=micro, mra=macro. I feel a protective instinct for both. My interest in mens rights is largely political. Not much to do with personal experience. Macro issues. I think its the elephant in the room which is largely ignored by the greater culture. It’s why Roissy is so appealing. He gets it. I’d rather talk about MRA than being yet another one of a million people discussing health care reform for example.

      I hope you consider my comments toward Nova at least a partial defense. I do believe, all things being equal, success and experience with women bring wisdom. Thats the point I was trying to make with my hypothetical men example. I think that was one of your larger points.

      I just want to be careful to paint with too large a brush. I think Obs went a bit over the top. Defending Game is one thing but basically ridiculing men who seek legal change is to much for me. More distinctions please.

      Because I think the tenets of Game are so important, I want it to have a big tent. A lot of guys reading “you are a loser if you don’t get laid” will shy away from Game instinctively. On the other hand, I want MRAs to be open to potential sympathizers within the seduction community.

      You can probably consider me partially in your corner. I suspect Roissy would be in your corner as well. Your last two posts have been kick ass by the way.

    • Oh by the way. You might not consider yourself an MRA per say,(i prefer mens rights advocate to activist by the way) but your last post is certainly something one would write.

  2. Relationships and marriage generally bring wisdom.

    No. Just wisdom about relationships and marriage. The same with other aspects. The combat vet has wisdom about being in combat. The doctor has wisdom in the practice of medicine.

    This is a function of the ability to learn. All things being equal, each man will accumulate an equal amount of wisdom over time, but in different fields. The reason why we don’t all have the same wisdom at the same age, is that all things are not equal. Some people are dumber than a box of hammers. Others ignore wisdom to seek instant gratification. Some people just don’t learn, even from their own painful experiences.

    • Hi Hale,

      I think wisdom in one area tends to leak out into other areas.

      “The reason why we don’t all have the same wisdom at the same age, is that all things are not equal. Some people are dumber than a box of hammers. Others ignore wisdom to seek instant gratification. Some people just don’t learn, even from their own painful experiences.”

      Truth.

      OT: Did you see my post about the interview Rush Limbaugh brought up yesterday? I’ve got a bunch of ditto heads coming here from their search engine. Kind of funny.

  3. novaseeker

    An interesting post. I have responded over at my blog. 🙂

  4. Gantt:

    I wrote this at Nova’s place. It pertains to our discussion:

    In response to something KK said, this meme has been floated around all too much in this discussion:

    “Yes, in a way handing the authority of measuring a man’s worth to the feet of womenfolk is distasteful, but usually there is a reason why women shun these guys’ approaches. ”

    This promotes the idea that men unduly place too much value on women because they compete for them. This is the wrong way to look at the situation. Men are competing against other men for sexual relations with women *not against women*. I’d argue that women have a sort of stored-up sexuality that they’ll dole out to the most desirable suitors. If it’s not guy A she’s flogging it will be guy B.

    MRAs and others in this discussion think that I’m giving women too much credit or too much value because men’s value is gleaned from their success with women. No. Their value is gleaned from their performance relative to other men. This is an important distinction if we’re talking about the relationships *between men* and the extent to which one man is wise and worth listening to.

    So I’m not favoring the sexually experienced man over the virgin because I value women too much. I favor the former because he has exhibited qualities that place him above the virgin in a certain hierarchy. If we are to also be HBD proponents, we have to accept that men break down into hierarchies.

    • Hey Chuck,

      “MRAs and others in this discussion think that I’m giving women too much credit or too much value because men’s value is gleaned from their success with women.”

      Not here. I don’t view you as a female supremacist. heh. If anything, game teaches men to DHV and gives a realistic portrait of the female animal.

      “So I’m not favoring the sexually experienced man over the virgin because I value women too much. I favor the former because he has exhibited qualities that place him above the virgin in a certain hierarchy. If we are to also be HBD proponents, we have to accept that men break down into hierarchies,”

      Certainly there are hierarchies. Women are more valuable biologically because eggs are more scarce than sperm. This gives them leverage and the ability to be more choosy than men. ( societal changes make this fact more pronounced) Like you say, men have to compete to be one of the chosen. Wisdom will come to those more successful in the mating dance. ( Opting out of the dance, while I think it is unappealing for most men, doesn’t necessarily mean less value or even wisdom though.)

      Some men will also be born with innate advantages that allows them better success with women. A natural, maybe a George Clooney type, isn’t as wise to the ways of women as Roosh or Roissy, even though Clooney might be able to bag more women. Clooney is higher up in the hierarchy but not as insightful or wise as others. (If George Clooney is reading this with his waitress girlfriend please know I meant nothing personal. I only use you as a random example.)

      My only point is that it doesn’t have to be the only measure of a mans worth. Women would gain default inherent higher value if this were the case. I think their advantage in the sexual market is enough.

      Realism about the sexual marketplace is important. I have no interest in promoting “pretty lies”.

      (This discussion probably has alot to do with religious beliefs or lack there of as well. You did a good piece on that very topic a few days ago. I wish I had the time flesh out what I mean. I’m an agnostic who views “good” religion favorably for what its worth.)

      The 1st advice I would ever give a guy who is poor with women is Game. I’d be hyping Roissy, Roosh, Mystery and all the rest like Billy Mays on steroids.

      I’ve got to be realistic though. Some guys, for whatever reason, won’t or can’t learn Game. While I wouldn’t seek advice about women from them, it doesn’t mean I wouldn’t consider their insights on other things.

      Even the bitter, reclusive, angry, excuse making guys you talk about ( and who I agree exist) can make contributions elsewhere. Additionally, unless they unfairly attack Game or its advocates, I have no interest in calling them out.

      Good feedback.

  5. Gantt,

    Your stances is well-thought through, and surprisingly balanced. I adamantly agree with a couple of your summary statements:

    “There is more than one path to wisdom.”

    “A mans inherent value isn’t predicated on his ability with women.”

    Sometimes it seems that Game advocates (due to the limited scope of Game) place values on men and women solely based on their sexual market value or their ability to suceed in relationships with the opposite success. Though it is reasonable to place a sexual market value on people based on their ability within said realm, it is dangerous to extent that evalutaion beyond the sexual marketplace. In some ways, it does seem that Chuck, Roissy and Roosh do extend such a categorization too far.

    For that reason, I think it is admirable that you have pointed out that there are many various domains of wisdom and that each path of experience and wisdom has it’s own intrinsic values. For this reason, the value and worth of a person, contribution-wise, is a multi-faceted thing and cannot be limited to any one aspect of life. Likewise, I think it is wise to value a person’s opinions in proportion to their wisdom in a given field.

    • Hi Silas,

      Thanks. My main purpose in being so…nuanced?, is that I really want Game to be attractive to men that aren’t only young, single and secular.

      Game benefits men on a personal level of course, but it also works to undermine the pedestal that allows for so many legal and cultural double standards.

  6. A lot of this goes to the old question of whether the insider or the outsider sees things most clear. The truth is there are advantages and disadvantages to both. The insider is in great danger of losing perspective, while the outsider is in danger of not knowing what he is talking about.

  7. How about if one of them is married and has 2 children?

    Considering the large amount of married guys who have told me not to get married or to wait as long as possible to get married, clearly the only wisdom they received from getting married (that is relevant beyond being married) is not to do it or push it back as far as possible. I didn’t have to be married to already know that. It isn’t a stretch to apply that to relationships with women in general.

    Yes, some men don’t work enough at self improvement.

    What exactly is self improvement in this context? The idea that you’re a loser if you don’t get laid just gives women control over the definition of manhood. Self improvement in this context does the same thing because its not objective and completely dependent on women. Self improvement outside of this context has a more objective definition. There are clear goals and benefits to self improvement and its consistent with good judgement.

    Learning Game of course is different that self improvement to get women since with Game you’re learning about how things really work. You benefit from Game even if you never use it.

    More and more we see guys becoming thugs because these guys find that it attracts women. Objectively, this is not self improvement.

  8. mongo

    “Relationships and marriage generally bring wisdom.”

    Wittgenstein: It seems to me that, in every culture, I come across a chapter headed “Wisdom.” And then I know exactly what is going to follow: “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.”

  9. Good post. Hybrid is where it’s at. I question the origin of why a man or woman seeks to implement game into their interactions with the opposite sex. If it traces back to insecurity, an unresolved emotional issue, being a control freak or is rooted in a psychological web of delusion and denial in their own minds then I tend to devalue their opinions of the opposite sex and use of game. Game is a tool, one should know when to use it and even more importantly, when not to.

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