“Empathy is good for Game” sounds a lot like a truism, correct? It sounds good, so it must be true. We can spit out more statements like this:
- Having big biceps is good for Game.
- Having a six-figure job is good for Game.
Well, at some point, we need to switch our viewpoint from expansive (i.e., more is good) to a restricted viewpoint (i.e., the minimum requirements). At some point, there must be a meaningful distinction. Players have gotten lays without big biceps and without big wallets, but the same can’t be claimed about Empathy.
Don’t take this lightly. This is the top-down perspective on our biases. What we are discussing is exactly how to audit ideas and advice. This is rarely discussed in the manosphere, and that is why there is so much debate over what Game is. Different angles of analysis lead to different conclusions, even with the same inputs. For example, an expansive viewpoint leads to the run-of-the-mill “raise your value” guy. Do gym, work on your own business, do approaches on schedule, etc. But are people who follow such a schedule with Spartan discipline truly happy? I think not.
The key here is the direction of our analysis: it becomes diluted when we switch the question from “what do I need to get laid?” (at minimum) to the question “will this help me get laid?”. The first question has only a few answers, while the latter can be as open as “owning a goat” being a legit answer.
The plan to get laid
Falsifiability, the cornerstone of Science
The keyword here is falsifiability. Can your statement be wrong? For example, can a goat help you get laid? … Well, it depends on how you use it:
- If you are a farmer in the 1500s, a goat might be the equivalent of a status symbol as a Lambo.
- In the 2000s, you might use it for swag points at your villa parties.
- Most likely, owning a goat will not help your Game.
There are arguments for both sides and this ambiguity is confusing. As is, we cannot falsify any of the correlations between goats and Game. The original question has to be reformulated. Here is the falsifiable version, try answering: Do I need to own a goat to get laid?
This concept of reformulating questions to obtain better answers is not new. In fact, it is the cornerstone of Science. And what I mean here is true Science, true Science with capital S, not 21st century Academia.
The reason why falsifiability is so important is that it allows you to make a hypothesis. The hypothesis can then be tested experimentally and empirically. Take the following statement, for example: Does Bigfoot exist? From a Scientific viewpoint, this is not a question. Bigfoot does not exist, period. Well, why?
Assume now you hold the prior worldview that Bigfoot exists. Well, how do we test it? We can search in the forest, behind a tree, and under the table, and not find him. But this is not enough evidence to falsify the statement. For all we know, based on our prior assumption, Bigfoot might still exist somewhere else. Unless we search the entire Earth, we could never falsify the statement.
Where?
Assume instead, you hold the opinion that Bigfoot does not exist. This is a falsifiable statement. The moment you find him, maybe behind in the closet or under the bed, we can revise our opinion and correct it. This is the essence of deduction. A statement is as useful as its deductive value. But if it cannot be falsified, then we cannot get any deductive value from it.
Game as Epistemology
This thought process is crucial for your development in Game. As Krauser pointed out, we Players, know much more than scientists. Simply because we have access to infield data. We can make a hypothesis and then go test it infield to get real-world feedback. Sociologists and Psychologists cannot do that. That first part, however, the making a hypothesis part, is as crucial as the second part, the infield testing. If we cannot order our thoughts, then our infield experiences won’t help us resolve our questions. They might even lead you to wrong conclusions, turning a well-meaning process into pure quackery.
Don’t take this lightly. Like poker, Game is subject to high amounts of luck and variance. Distinguishing rules from noise is all the more difficult. Sadly, unlike poker, we also don’t have a fixed statistical population (the deck of cards) to build theories upon. That is why debate still rages over principles and concepts, even if Game has already existed for 20 years. Distinguishing value from garbage is all the more important. Falsifiability and a restricted worldview are the foundational concepts of Seduction Theory.
Empathy
One of the concepts that is indeed foundational for Game is Empathy. Empathy is the basis of calibration. Let’s unpack it, a common definition is as follows:
Empathy is often defined as the capacity to recognize how someone else sees a situation, to grasp and emotionally resonate with their experience, and to respond to it in a meaningful way.
Therefore, Empathy is understanding. Understanding the thought patterns and feelings of the other person. It is the baseline of strategy. When Otto von Bismarck outplayed the fuck out of Europe to create a strong German empire, he had Empathy. When a chess Grandmaster can essentially read your mind and outplay you, this is Empathy.
Empathy is about strategy and war. It is an entirely male concept. However, as with most male concepts, Empathy has been hijacked by Modernity. The concept has been diluted, even turned into a female concept. The average person cannot understand Empathy because they confuse it with Sympathy. Sympathy is copying the feelings of another being. It is entirely a female concept. Again, here is a definition:
Sympathy refers to noticing and comprehending another being’s hardship or need, and feeling moved to respond to that situation.
When we devise a trap to catch an antelope, we do this by thinking as the antelope does. We study its behavior patterns and we hijack them at the crucial moment. This is Empathy; it is male in nature. In contrast, when you see the struggling antelope in its last moments, and we start crying for its misfortune, totally forgetting your empty belly, this is Sympathy. You feel what it feels; it is female in nature. If males had evolved for sympathy, the entire village would be starving. Empathy doesn’t need sympathy. Bismarck had Empathy, but he didn’t give a fuck about the feelings of his enemies. He could differentiate strategy from everything else. Strategy demands understanding in the abstract.
Game and Empathy
Empathy is the basis of calibration. When we are calibrated, we acknowledge all the unwritten social rules and the cues from the girl. In particular, we don’t passively acknowledge them. We act on them, we bend them to our will. For example, imposing the Seduction frame or covertly escalating: this is correct leadership in the eyes of the girl. You are on an adventure, but to everyone else, nothing appears out of the ordinary. Specifically, that adventure is tailored to her. To her feelings and her character. Multilevel Empathy in action.
Now, in one of the most blatant crimes of modern psychology and therapy: convincing men they need Sympathy. Seduction doesn’t work like that. With sympathy as baseline, we have the following scenario: We mentally acknowledge the girl’s hesitation/excitement, mixed feelings at the first date… then, decide to just stand there and emote with her. No, no, no, we take action and lead. The whole purpose of calibration is so we can lead efficiently and effectively.
History and Empathy
One of the heavyweight contenders as teachers of Empathy is studying history. For the simple reason that most behavior is affected by culture. Most of the culture itself is an outcome of history. The adversity that society has lived through the ages has been imprinted on its Soul. Studying critical history reveals this.
The difficulty here is finding good historians. Let us use Carroll Quigley as a case study. In my opinion, the most fascinating historian of the last century. In his books, history is not expressed through stories alone. History is expressed through long-term strategies of nations, people, or civilizations. How these manifested and clashed over centuries. Here are some insights derived from his work [Tragedy and Hope]:
The West benefited from the Dark Ages by separating the concepts of “society” from “state”. During the Dark Ages, states clearly didn’t exist, but society did survive. This led to the conclusion that the state has to serve society. Religion and the judiciary are separated from the government. The government itself became a tool of society and not society as a servant to the state.
Obvious as it may sound, Greek philosophy and statesmanship that dominated the worldview were up for a totalitarian (albeit not necessarily authoritarian) state. Read Plato’s Utopia for example. This distinction singlehandedly explains the difference in mentalities between Eastern Europe (with no Dark Ages) and the West. It is expressed most clearly in the American Constitution.
The UK was effectively a plutocracy. Simply by eliminating the salaries of government officials. These officials needed an independent income. Running for office was reserved only for the rich. Essentially, turning the country into a plutocracy.
Three major civilizations collapsed during the 20th century, and the chaos that ensued in the aftermath. Pre communist China, Imperialist Japan, and the Islamic Ottoman Empire. Their modern versions are a Westernized, dysfunctional caricature. This has created much confusion in cultural mixing and interpretation.
The seven revolutions that made the West free and democratic, just because they were imported by other civilizations in a different order, they made those civilizations authoritarian and undemocratic. Massively so. Essentially, countries decided to sacrifice their own population for access to Western goods and technologies. As can be evidently seen in the USSR’s 5-year plans and China’s Great Leap Forward. The aftermaths are still visible to this day. Enjoy:
