Site Map

Read the book

Substack | Twitter

Author: Coffee daygame

  • What is Value ?

    What is Value ?

    If there is a topic of endless tail-chasing in the manosphere, it is exactly this one: trying to define value. Then comes the predictable conclusion that given this thing called “value” is measurable, you should max out on it and then pussy will land in your dick from the sky.

    As I have said before, regardless of definition of value, this train of thought starts with wrong premises. This guy expects a pat on the shoulder and a “teacher is proud of you”. In reality, even if value was definable, it should be expressed as an outgrowth of personality and of your inner core. It is proactively expressed and not a checklist. Men become, women are. Men act, women react. That is the only healthy intersexual structure. When “men are”, by definition, devolves intersexual dynamics into a status symbol (status is what “you have”), and again, by definition, aims to impress peers as the main goal. Hence, enjoyment out of hitting and dating on girls is subservient to status, hence… what’s the point?

    Let’s not get ahead of ourselves and argue on a more fundamental point.

    Value is not definable

    Why did she have sex with me? A fair question with a million answers. It has so many answers that it makes it pointless to even begin searching for a precise definition.

    A simpler answer, and the only possible one at that, is: value is whatever makes girls want to jump you. There you go; that is as far as you can humanly get. You can crack your head, but you will only be able to come out with negative answers (what is not value).

    So does your fashion add to your value?

    • Yes, because more girls jump you now than before.
    • No, because girls avoid you

    Is your charisma on point?

    • Yes, because girls spark, laugh, and drawn to you
    • No, because girls tune out

    Run around, run around, but all the Yes’s are just the opposite of the negative condition (the No’s). And they are all defined post fact, purely based on outcome.

    Don’t get ahead of yourself and claim that it is all pointless. There is much of self-improvement to be done to remove the anti-value traits, but the insight discussed simply shows that there is (or can ever be) a beaten path to just follow.

    You can make all the rules you want, and there will still be girls that will like you just based on DNA or being the right day and right time. And many more girls that will not like you no matter what you do. Hell, you might just move country or city, then all your rules turn on their head, and you are back to square one.

    How to treat Value

    The whole discussion above, thus, perplexes the subject. As the concept of Value is essentially a black box and we can never understand it itself, we still need to use it empirically. Since the whole thing is thus defined empirically, then Value can plausibly be handwaved entirely and replaced with “girl interest”. This matter warrants a bigger future discussion.


    To continue the discussion, we now assume there are good behaviours that get us closer to pussy. These behaviours can still be reduced to absurdity and negative concepts as discussed above, so with abuse of notation we will keep them undefined, but will still call them “value” with abuse of notation.


    Let us distinguish two categories, passive value and active value. Passive value is the thing in you (looks, reputation status) that are fixed. Active value is everything that can be considered value that is actionable.

    As always, passive value exists as a hard threshold. If you are below it, girls won’t entertain you. You are out of the set entirely. This is easy to argue because of the following. Empirically, the situation goes like this: you cut bad habit X, and you are now getting a little bit more interest from girls. Stochastically, you will find some girls that right now like you, then you focus on them and the rest should be irrelevant for you (if you are irrelevant for them, don’t waste your time).

    There are still things you can do to affect your baseline threshold, for example social proof and pre-selection. But I would argue these are traits you actively need to display, hence part of active value. This can easily reduce to where is the dividing line, so I will keep it vague on purpose. The argument still holds conceptually without resolving this.

    Aside: Isn’t it funny how both social proof and pre-selection work? Why that guy has value: because others follow him (social proof) or other girls like him (pre-selection). Still, it doesn’t answer the question of what “value” is (the root cause), and social behaviour is thus directed on top of air and dubious pre-existing behaviour. Funny, ah?

    Active Value = Value Giving

    This is the one true advice of manosphere that sadly has been lost to time. Before the tough guy internet act, the rules were simple:

    To be the highest status guy, you must give the most value to the group

    This is pure group dynamics at work. All the fake it till you make it can go to hell. If you don’t genuinely give value to the group, sooner or later people will realise, and then you are out.

    Whether it is charismatic value, i.e., specialized and intriguing input. Group value in indirect game, etc. People will notice that you give value, and girls will notice twice. The chad is not a chad just on looks, the chad controls the frame and entertains the group [Do you realise the massive value it gives to people, the simple fact of not making them having to think (frame control). Most humans are utter trash (I have been reading too much philosophy lately)].

    If you don’t know where to start on value giving, start on the economic definition of it. Introduce connections of value (be the middleman), handle logistics, handle entertainment schedule, raise the mood of the group. Soon enough the economic and sexual definitions of value will blend (via the aforementioned social proof and pre-selection mechanisms). Do the opposite (value taking) and people will avoid you; this is the one true law of all human interaction.

    However, even then we are not done, because value-giving must feel as such. Hence, it cannot be an underhanded attempt at reciprocacy or an obvious stepping stone to another goal. Correct value giving must follow:

    1. From a position of abundance. Don’t expect anything in return; some people will be value takers.
    2. Never take anything without returning the favor in some way or another. Refuse if you must (rule 1 above doesn’t apply to you).
    3. Don’t play favorites. You give value to the entire set, not just the people you like.
    4. This should be your default, not something you turn on and after a while off again (see 1).

  • The Degenerate and The Thunder

    The Degenerate and The Thunder

    It has to be pretty clear at this point that the Manosphere is not about the women at its core. Women were just the first and most obvious step, but also a gateway to the following question:

    “If I had been lied about gender dynamics, marriage, and all the social expectations and institutions that stem from them. Then what else have I been lied about?”

    For he who inquires shall discover. Well, you have been lied about everything. I ask you seriously, what do you know? What do you know of history, morality, philosophy of thought, and critical thinking? When you investigate an idea or a concept, how far in the past do you delve? Do you even understand the world beyond the last few decades? Can you trace things? Can you compare things?

    And don’t even go back decades; can you trace things even pre-COVID? Or did you already forget?

    Nobody has explained this idea better – of the prison world – than Bronze Age Pervert (in Bronze Age Mindset and Caribbean Rhythms), but before you learn, you must feel. If you cannot feel the truth, you will never seek and understand it.

    Thus I give this test to you: read over the following passage of Zarathustra, where Nietzsche, in the most prescient fashion, prophesies the world of the next hundreds of years when he describes the proliferation of the “Last Man” (as a biological species, but let’s not get into THAT here). Feel the thunder in his words and the precision of his thought. Because ultimately, the Last Man is the anti-seductive Beta; it is what Daygame tries to avoid; it is the modern bugman, not in half-truth, the full truth.


    Note: Zarathustra is a notoriously difficult text, albeit the Prologue is decently clear if read slowly. I would discourage interested readers from going and picking up the book; instead, refer to Bronze Age Pervert primarily, then other Nietzschean texts (Genealogy of Morals, Twilight of the Idols, Antichrist), and at the very end, the rest of this book.

    I will provide annotations for some of the harder metaphors.




    Prologue to Zarathustra

    3.

    When Zarathustra arrived at the nearest town which adjoineth the forest, he found many people assembled in the market-place; for it had been announced that a rope-dancer would give a performance. And Zarathustra spake thus unto the people:

    I TEACH YOU THE SUPERMAN. Man is something that is to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man?

    Coffee: Man left on his own devices devolves into a beast.

    All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and ye want to be the ebb of that great tide, and would rather go back to the beast than surpass man?

    What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame.

    Ye have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still worm. Once were ye apes, and even yet man is more of an ape than any of the apes.

    Even the wisest among you is only a disharmony and hybrid of plant and phantom. But do I bid you become phantoms or plants?

    Lo, I teach you the Superman!

    The Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The Superman SHALL BE the meaning of the earth!

    I conjure you, my brethren, REMAIN TRUE TO THE EARTH, and believe not those who speak unto you of superearthly hopes! Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not.

    Coffee: Trust instincts and body, all truth is biological truth. The domestication of the man into cities and civilization has created poisonous morality.

    Despisers of life are they, decaying ones and poisoned ones themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so away with them!

    Once blasphemy against God was the greatest blasphemy; but God died, and therewith also those blasphemers. To blaspheme the earth is now the dreadfulest sin, and to rate the heart of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth!

    Coffee: Belief in God died, but all the principles of thinking and morality live on, for the first time truly groundless.

    Once the soul looked contemptuously on the body, and then that contempt was the supreme thing:—the soul wished the body meagre, ghastly, and famished. Thus it thought to escape from the body and the earth.

    Oh, that soul was itself meagre, ghastly, and famished; and cruelty was the delight of that soul!

    But ye, also, my brethren, tell me: What doth your body say about your soul? Is your soul not poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency?

    Verily, a polluted stream is man. One must be a sea, to receive a polluted stream without becoming impure.

    Lo, I teach you the Superman: he is that sea; in him can your great contempt be submerged.

    What is the greatest thing ye can experience? It is the hour of great contempt. The hour in which even your happiness becometh loathsome unto you, and so also your reason and virtue.

    The hour when ye say: “What good is my happiness! It is poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency. But my happiness should justify existence itself!”

    The hour when ye say: “What good is my reason! Doth it long for knowledge as the lion for his food? It is poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency!”

    The hour when ye say: “What good is my virtue! As yet it hath not made me passionate. How weary I am of my good and my bad! It is all poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency!”

    The hour when ye say: “What good is my justice! I do not see that I am fervour and fuel. The just, however, are fervour and fuel!”

    The hour when ye say: “What good is my pity! Is not pity the cross on which he is nailed who loveth man? But my pity is not a crucifixion.”

    Coffee: Pity as the dominant Christian virtue. Sacrifice for others and your neighbour.

    Have ye ever spoken thus? Have ye ever cried thus? Ah! would that I had heard you crying thus!

    It is not your sin—it is your self-satisfaction that crieth unto heaven; your very sparingness in sin crieth unto heaven!

    Where is the lightning to lick you with its tongue? Where is the frenzy with which ye should be inoculated?

    Lo, I teach you the Superman: he is that lightning, he is that frenzy!—

    When Zarathustra had thus spoken, one of the people called out: “We have now heard enough of the rope-dancer; it is time now for us to see him!” And all the people laughed at Zarathustra.

    4.

    Zarathustra, however, looked at the people and wondered. Then he spake thus:

    Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman—a rope over an abyss.

    A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting.

    What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an OVER-GOING and a DOWN-GOING.

    Coffee: Over-going is physical and inner improvement. Down-going is “sacrifice” for other’s benefits. All the “I love” below are, of course, ironic.

    I love those that know not how to live except as down-goers, for they are the over-goers.

    I love the great despisers, because they are the great adorers, and arrows of longing for the other shore.

    I love those who do not first seek a reason beyond the stars for going down and being sacrifices, but sacrifice themselves to the earth, that the earth of the Superman may hereafter arrive.

    I love him who liveth in order to know, and seeketh to know in order that the Superman may hereafter live. Thus seeketh he his own down-going.

    I love him who laboureth and inventeth, that he may build the house for the Superman, and prepare for him earth, animal, and plant: for thus seeketh he his own down-going.

    I love him who loveth his virtue: for virtue is the will to down-going, and an arrow of longing.

    I love him who reserveth no share of spirit for himself, but wanteth to be wholly the spirit of his virtue: thus walketh he as spirit over the bridge.

    I love him who maketh his virtue his inclination and destiny: thus, for the sake of his virtue, he is willing to live on, or live no more.

    I love him who desireth not too many virtues. One virtue is more of a virtue than two, because it is more of a knot for one’s destiny to cling to.

    I love him whose soul is lavish, who wanteth no thanks and doth not give back: for he always bestoweth, and desireth not to keep for himself.

    I love him who is ashamed when the dice fall in his favour, and who then asketh: “Am I a dishonest player?”—for he is willing to succumb.

    I love him who scattereth golden words in advance of his deeds, and always doeth more than he promiseth: for he seeketh his own down-going.

    I love him who justifieth the future ones, and redeemeth the past ones: for he is willing to succumb through the present ones.

    I love him who chasteneth his God, because he loveth his God: for he must succumb through the wrath of his God.

    I love him whose soul is deep even in the wounding, and may succumb through a small matter: thus goeth he willingly over the bridge.

    I love him whose soul is so overfull that he forgetteth himself, and all things are in him: thus all things become his down-going.

    I love him who is of a free spirit and a free heart: thus is his head only the bowels of his heart; his heart, however, causeth his down-going.

    I love all who are like heavy drops falling one by one out of the dark cloud that lowereth over man: they herald the coming of the lightning, and succumb as heralds.

    Lo, I am a herald of the lightning, and a heavy drop out of the cloud: the lightning, however, is the SUPERMAN.—

    5.

    When Zarathustra had spoken these words, he again looked at the people, and was silent. “There they stand,” said he to his heart; “there they laugh: they understand me not; I am not the mouth for these ears.

    Must one first batter their ears, that they may learn to hear with their eyes? Must one clatter like kettledrums and penitential preachers? Or do they only believe the stammerer?

    They have something whereof they are proud. What do they call it, that which maketh them proud? Culture, they call it; it distinguisheth them from the goatherds.

    They dislike, therefore, to hear of ‘contempt’ of themselves. So I will appeal to their pride.

    I will speak unto them of the most contemptible thing: that, however, is THE LAST MAN!”

    And thus spake Zarathustra unto the people:

    It is time for man to fix his goal. It is time for man to plant the germ of his highest hope.

    Still is his soil rich enough for it. But that soil will one day be poor and exhausted, and no lofty tree will any longer be able to grow thereon.

    Alas! there cometh the time when man will no longer launch the arrow of his longing beyond man—and the string of his bow will have unlearned to whizz!

    I tell you: one must still have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: ye have still chaos in you.

    Alas! There cometh the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There cometh the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.

    Lo! I show you THE LAST MAN.

    “What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?”—so asketh the last man and blinketh.

    The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the last man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man liveth longest.

    “We have discovered happiness”—say the last men, and blink thereby.

    They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loveth one’s neighbour and rubbeth against him; for one needeth warmth.

    Turning ill and being distrustful, they consider sinful: they walk warily. He is a fool who still stumbleth over stones or men!

    A little poison now and then: that maketh pleasant dreams. And much poison at last for a pleasant death.

    One still worketh, for work is a pastime. But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one.

    One no longer becometh poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wanteth to rule? Who still wanteth to obey? Both are too burdensome.

    No shepherd, and one herd! Every one wanteth the same; every one is equal: he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the madhouse.

    “Formerly all the world was insane,”—say the subtlest of them, and blink thereby.

    They are clever and know all that hath happened: so there is no end to their raillery. People still fall out, but are soon reconciled—otherwise it spoileth their stomachs.

    They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health.

    “We have discovered happiness,”—say the last men, and blink thereby.—

    And here ended the first discourse of Zarathustra, which is also called “The Prologue”: for at this point the shouting and mirth of the multitude interrupted him. “Give us this last man, O Zarathustra,”—they called out—“make us into these last men! Then will we make thee a present of the Superman!” And all the people exulted and smacked their lips. Zarathustra, however, turned sad, and said to his heart:

    “They understand me not: I am not the mouth for these ears.

    Too long, perhaps, have I lived in the mountains; too much have I hearkened unto the brooks and trees: now do I speak unto them as unto the goatherds.

    Calm is my soul, and clear, like the mountains in the morning. But they think me cold, and a mocker with terrible jests.

    And now do they look at me and laugh: and while they laugh they hate me too. There is ice in their laughter.”




    We found happiness, they say, and then they blink

  • Beyond the Idols: Krauser

    Beyond the Idols: Krauser

    Preface

    Krauser made major contributions to Daygame, both in theory and in fostering the community itself. A true pioneer and giant of our cult (if you want to call it that). We wouldn’t be here without him, and this is an indisputable fact.

    However, in your progression as Daygamer you should eventually cut ties and see him for who he truly is: a human, not an idol. Because to prosper, you must eventually cut off from all influences.

    There is an effect that such strong personalities have that they warp people in their view of morality and lifestyle. Such a thing is documented in John Bodi’s books (albeit pathologically).

    I personally had some struggle disassociating from Krauser, endlessly comparing stats and achievements. At times, even applying part of his Game where it was not the best idea to do so, just for the thrill of emulation and competition (dick size contest in pure English).

    This article will provide criticism, but only insofar as you can free yourself from the gravity of their personalities. It is not meant as demonization or an end-all, be-all critique. So bear this in mind.



    Krauser

    Krauser was the person who had the most influence on me personally. I never gravitated to other PUAs, and from context, our personalities were a natural match, hence a tailored mentor for my journey.

    In particular, his books, Daygame Mastery, Daygame Infinite and the first memoir – Balls Deep – should be mandatory reading for every Daygamer, if not PUA in general. Well, then let’s get into it.

    He started incredibly Beta

    This is all over Balls Deep and parts of other memoirs. Of course, such influence has dissolved by the time we reach Daygame Mastery in 2014. The main culprits are as follows:

    • Slow dates.
    • Taking too much pleasure in intermediate results (nudes, kisses, dates, etc.) that are not sex.
    • And worst of all: developing long game.

    All these points are exaggerated in the Black girl he was chasing in Balls Deep. Which makes a nice story, but at the end of the day is an exercise in tail chasing.

    Now, being Beta is not a sin, we all start like that, but emulating or taking parts of his journey is bad when you are not in that spot yourself. His tactic of intermediate results works well for keeping engaged with the art of Daygame until mastery, but for you, the student, disassociate the points that are there for authenticity and narrative from the actual good theoretical points.

    Most of his early escapades are just nice stories aimed at highlighting personal development.

    He lived in a different world

    The thing that people missed is that the world of 2010-2015 (or the pre-first Trump era, where Zog had not amplified his attacks) was not a slightly different epoch; they were a different planet entirely.

    Back then, there were no dating apps, the Gender war was more moderate, people were way more outgoing and open (destroyed since Covid entirely), immigration hadn’t flattened everything yet, and people were generally more positive.

    In particular, in terms of SMP we can summarize it in the following graph:

    Obesity rates by counties

    If we include overweights, most countries have increased fatty rates by about 10-20% in the last 15 years. Just consider how much value this adds to thin pussy in terms of market price. Nowadays, just being thin is probably the only requirement to being a 7. Imagine wanting to consider proportions or other metrics.

    In short, the sociological and physiological conditions were much better than the craphole we live in now. You simply cannot compare your conditions now with his back then. In particular, and worst of all, Gen Z right now ranges from moderately to fully retarded (depending on where you live). All the vitality and lust for life has left these empty bodies. At its worst, you have this. Most of the adventures he describes in his books don’t exist right now. I am sorry. This type of girl just doesn’t exist right now.

    The narratives are constructed

    If you are reading his memoirs, then the narratives are constructed. No harm in literary perspective; we all much appreciate a better book, but the comparison is unfair. His books roughly follow this:

    • Up to banging a 10/10 (book 1)
    • Inner game growth (book 2)
    • Mad adventure year (book 3)
    • Peak game and publishing career (book 4)

    But these narratives have been inserted post fact. The same is true for the hero’s journey that Bodi even admits to.

    Living that life was probably hellish and directionless more often than not. And this is not discussed; a backbone of direction is inserted via sleight of hand in the memoirs. This wasn’t the case in the real story.

    Krauser even admits it at the end of the first memoir: he was far more unhappy than happy for the first two years. And any happiness he got afterwards was not from becoming good at Game; it was from mental introspection.

    The results are rigged

    He has a post somewhere that all PUA results are peaks, while the reality on the ground is mostly failure with rare glimpses of success. Infields are inevitably cherry-picked.

    Same is true for statistics and his statistics in particular. I am not sure he clarifies it anywhere, but when he claims lays in his Daygame stats, that is all the lays he got in that year, not the Daygame-only lays.

    A clear example is here from 2015:

    He admits at least one of those was a tinder lay

    In particular, his results are lifestyle optimized, take this account from 2013 stats:

    The difference from 1/50 to 1/20 is massive, as there is an efficiency claim of more than 150% improvement. Go to London with the same skill set as him, and you will feel like a goose in comparison.

    I will stress this again. Nothing wrong with Krauser; he did the best he could given his circumstances. If you make unfair comparisons between yourself and him, that is on you, not him.

    Stop following post 2015

    Read his story past memoir 5, and you will see pure madness. I refer to his 2015 stats account (or memoir 5). Eurojoints of as low as 3 days. Alternating between UK and Europe over 2-week intervals.

    • Makes nice stories: check ✓
    • Is pure madness that you should not try to emulate: also check ✓

    All the theoretical straight line of improvement (hero’s journey) falls apart here. Six years of PUA lifestyle, and the result was aimless wandering? That is not linear progress, or progress at all, depending on how you count.

    He even touched on such dangers in Daygame Infinite. But madness is madness, literary value aside.

    He associates with Brooding Sea

    “Show me your friend, and I will tell you who you are”

    • Do I know Brooding Sea? No.
    • Can I attest of his skills? Also No.
    • Do I believe him? No.

    In short, if you want to make such hard claims of results, quality, and everything you can get from life, you should have evidence to back it up.

    Brooding Sea has no such evidence, so bullshitter alarm goes ringing. The only thing he has to market himself is elitism and his association with Krauser.

    He might be the big thing; I don’t know. But from what he posses online, he is probably not, and hence Krauser associating with him should ring some alarms about his character as well.

  • The Theory of Emotions

    The Theory of Emotions

    This article is a spiritual continuation of the Paul Ekman piece and of the Mindfulness piece. It concludes the mini-series on the inspection of what emotions are and what causes them. This article doesn’t really have any practical Red Pill application, but it is a theory lunchpad for future concepts. Well, let’s get to it.



    Here I will present the Constructed Theory of Emotions, a model that originates from Lisa Barrett and discussed on her book, but its roots are much older in Kant, actually.

    The first 100 or so pages are good

    In short, and contrasting Ekman (in whom emotions are reactions to external events), under this model, emotions are flexible mental concepts which the brain uses to summarise the moment-to-moment experiences. Not unlike an “apple” can mean all these things:

    But we still regard the concept of an “apple” as well defined. You know what an apple is, but now apply the same thing to happiness, sadness, etc. And in conclusion, an emotion does not exist as an evolutionary or bodily function, but only as a mental shortcut.

    First, we will summarise three results from neuroscience, before we mix some theory of mind philosophy.


    The illusion of free will

    This is an old result from the 1980s that aims to prove that there is no “free will”, but in reality, it just proves that consciousness is a secondary product of the brain, not the primary initiator.

    It goes like this:

    • The subject is hooked up to a machine to scan the brain (electronic encephalograph – EEG).
    • He is given a choice, choose a button on left (blue) or right (red).
    • He is asked to make a choice first and press the button second.
    • He records the time of his decision, then the time of the action (pressing the bottom).
    • The timings are compared with the EEG output.

    The scheduling action is planned at the pre-motor cortex, (above your ear and to the front). If your right PMC is excited, it controls the left side of the body, and so the subject chooses the left button. If the left PMC is excited, we have the same situation vice versa. Hence, the PMC (either left or right) is gonna get excited at the time of decision and button press. That is the story, so let’s see the results:

    What is displayed here is that the PMC is excited, as expected, marked by “intention to act,” but it is also excited before the conscious decision is made. In some variations, up to a whole 10 seconds beforehand. That is called the “gap of free will”, essentially asking the question: “How is the brain active before consciousness has come to the same conclusion?”. Concluding eventually that consciousness is not the thing that drives the brain.

    There are variants of this experiment where scientists remotely (with radio waves) excite the subjects’ PMC before the decision. This swayed the subjects’ choice (to the targeted hemisphere) with 80% accuracy.

    Commentary

    We have now built block number 1: the brain operates below the level of consciousness, or better put, consciousness is a by-product of brain activity and subservient to it rather than the other way around.

    Aside: I don’t like that this experiment is tied to “free will” rather than consciousness; there are better philosophical arguments to refute free will, and we don’t need to go to such lengths as studying the brain for it.


    Interoception

    Interoception essentially means that there are no independent regions in the brain. In particular, some regions associated with “body budget”, i.e., how many resources are expected to be consumed from the body in the following moments, are so interconnected with everything that no decision (i.e., brain activity) can be made independently of them.

    Here is the issue visually, these are the regions associated with body budgeting:

    In plain English, what we said before means that if you are hungry, let’s say, then your body budget regions are locked in some configuration associated with it. Then any subsequent brain activity cannot (functionally) be independent of you being hungry, as the brain network is already partially defined by it.

    The famous example is regarding judges and paroles in the US:

    This graph sugarcoats the actual result of the study, which was that the hungrier the judges were getting (before the brakes), the less likely they were to grant paroles.

    Commentary

    There is nothing new with this result. This is exactly the concept of frames and framing, with the added twist that all thought actually has to go “through the body”. Or that your body itself is a giant framing axis for all your thoughts. Actually so dominant that it trumps all other axes.

    Therefore, hunger, physical pain, physical pleasure, level of exercise, how much sunlight you are getting, etc., define your thinking first and in particular more than anything else. A result that actually proves Nietzsche’s obsession with the body, and that everything is physical first before intellectual (and hence all morality is also biological by extension).


    The predictive brain

    This is the dominant neuroscientific model of the brain in recent times. The idea is that if you take the brain to be fully reactive, then you have multiple contradictions. I won’t get into detail, but here are some visual examples to showcase the point:


    The flash-lag effect showcases that the brain predicts the position of objects, so you see the flicking cube move faster.


    The brain fills in the image to construct two triangles, without their presence. In neuroscientific terms, your visual neurons fire in the absence of external signal.


    All the “fake shadow” illusions work because your brain simulates (predicts) the image holistically in the absence of moment-to-moment feedback. The pure visual feedback would showcase two squares of the same color.



    We can go on and on with this, but the bottom line is that there is significant evidence that the brain works as a predictive machine. Your perception right now is a prediction of your brain one moment in the past. The way the brain updates your perception of reality is just by corrections to the predictive model. Not unlike how a YouTube video works, where the data that your computer receives is in regards to pixels that must change color, while if there is no update, the pixel maintains the same color as the previous step.

    To illustrate this final point, let’s consider vision. The signal goes from the eyes to thalamus and then to the visual cortex at the back of the head. However, take a look at how many more blocking connections come from the visual cortex to the thalamus:

    And since we are on the topic and to tie this back to interoception, see how many more connections come from the body budgeting regions to the visual cortex:

    In particular, estimates have it that 90% of vision is not from the eyes. Extend the same concept to all senses, and you have the “predictive brain model”.




    Interlude to Philosophy

    The final building block is the concept of “categories and concepts” from philosophy. I am not sure the source of the concept, but I am following Barrett’s book here nonetheless.

    What we are aiming for is a model of how the brain groups information. A category is meant to correspond to the real world and be everything we might name under the same grouping. For example, a Fiat and a Ferrari are both under the category of car, but of course, physically, they are totally different.

    These are both “cars”

    What makes a category different from a concept, which itself is also a grouping, is that the concept is abstract, and it is the mental representation of the category in your brain. For example, when I prompt you with “tell me what is a car” maybe you will answer with this:

    The concept of “car”

    Repeating: category is a grouping in the real world, while concept is the abstract candidate representing the grouping.


    Now, this is not all theoretical mumbo jumbo; similar to frames, there is evidence that categories and concepts direct thinking. For example, take the following optical illusion:

    If you prime your brain with the “numbers” category (vertical), you see 13. If you prime your brain with the “letters” category (horizontal), then you see B.

    The Constructed Theory of Emotion

    We now have all the tools to explain the theory.

    Connection with Categories and Concepts

    We claim that emotions are simply categories. The mental representation we have of them is simply the concept of them. For example, we associate happiness with a smile, but also all the following are acceptable realizations of “happiness”:

    • cry in happiness
    • scream in happiness
    • jump in happiness
    • etc.

    All these fall into category of happiness

    The fact that despite the realizations of the category, we maintain a concept of happiness is what causes all the tunnel vision around emotions. The mental representative is strictly too narrow to explain what is happening.

    Connection with the Gap of Free Will

    However, as you might have already noticed, if the “emotion” is not biologically defined (in opposition to Ekman), then it is conceptually defined and hence a product of consciousness (by definition). Doubly so because it is a category, and hence fully lives fluidly in the realm of consciousness (nobody forces us to call the Fiat and the Ferrari as “cars”; it is a product of reason we do so).

    As the gap of free will section already proved, however, anything that is a product of consciousness is actually a product of underlying brain activity, as the faculty of reason sits on top of undefined mental activity below it.

    Connection with Interoception

    As all brain activity is intertwined with the physical state of the body, when consciousness declares a feeling as “emotion X”, then X is a product of the physical state itself following the law of interoception. Hence, when consciousness declares X to be happiness, it is just the contextual interpretation of the bodily state, or better put, a physiological interpretation in “context”. But then what is “context”? It leads us to…

    Connection with the predictive brain

    So what is context? What could it be if not your brain’s understanding of the situation, which, as we already established, is a prediction made one moment in the past.

    This prediction regulates the body budgeting regions of the brain, which in turn regulate interoception, which in turn regulates consciousness, which finally interprets everything into a grouping that it calls emotion.

    And there you have it. This is what makes emotions.

  • Gamma Male Psychology

    Gamma Male Psychology

    I have been on a relative hiatus. I am experiencing a small writing fatigue. Readers rest assured, while on my break I made a backlog of topics I want to explore. Specifically the question on how inner psychology changes and develops on the Daygame journey. Stay tuned for future articles!


    This short post owns homage to Dostoyevsky, as I am typing this after reading his novel “Notes from Underground”. This novel should be of particular interest to Daygamers, as it explores in detail a psychographic profile very dear to our hearts… the Gamma !

    The first part of the novel is a 30 page philosophical exhortation, while reading it, one agrees with the pillars of “gamma philosophy”. The writing is rational and deals with real problems.

    However… on the second part of the novel, Dostoyevsky pulls off the gloves and holds no punches. He showcases the life of the man who wrote those first 30 pages as a disgusting and pathetic creature. Duplicitous with high morality that secretly, not even he upholds to… in short, Gamma. All the earlier approving nods are out of the window and stomach turning behaviour takes place in all its glory.

    Well, I am no better writer than the man himself, so I leave readers with this book recommendation. It explores the topic in quite detail in aspects of work, love, friends and dealing with subordinates.

  • PR Consultant Manosphere: the Truth about the Dating Market

    PR Consultant Manosphere: the Truth about the Dating Market

    The manosphere has blessed the world with invaluable knowledge. I truly believe that there are men whose lives have been saved from total ruin, simply by following and understanding Red Pill basics.

    However… this does not mean that there are not versions of Red Pill advertised that totally miss the mark. They aim to spread confusion rather than clarity, the same way modern media propagates establishment misinformation. Similarly to how social media campaigns are decided in small rooms from so-called “PR consultants”, so is your daily manosphere content decided by the same guys.

    The main detection tool to distinguish gems from chuff is answering the following question: Is this advice aimed at increasing my agency? If it is not, it is usually there to confuse you. The founding block of the manosphere is precisely male agency.

    Having said that, let us address some common myths that are thrown around nowdays.


    The dating market is harder (Supply side)

    No, no, and no. A million times no. The dating market, as a market in the economic sense, has never been better than it is today. Lower your Ego and rationally consider the following:

    • Nearly every fertile young girl is unmarried – Never have been in the past. Young girls don’t leave the market (supply is maximal).
    • The concentration of people in megacities has made search costs as low as possible. In terms of meeting girls, the modern male has potential never before imagined.
    • Adding to the above, we have ease of travelling, instant communication, and if you are willing to go that route, dating apps.

    Therefore, purely in terms of Supply, the market for hot, young women has never been better in the history of the human race. Girls never leave the market, are concentrated in one place, and it is easier to communicate with them.

    You disagree? Speak with your grandfather. His village had 50 hot young girls, and by the time he was an adult, 30 of them had already been married. Compared to your ancestors, you are visiting a modern supermarket, while they had access to a raided convenience store.

    However… you still want to protest, the market is doomed because of male competition… well let’s see.


    The dating market is harder (Demand)

    Well, you protest that males are taller than ever, richer than ever, and… more of them in pure numbers than ever. We have well documented 3rd world (primarily male) invasions to modern nations that make the average city a low value cockfest.

    Well, it is true by purely mathematical and statistical accounts. The demand for sex from males matches and possibly exceeds the supply of girls. But you are forgetting the simple biological fact: Betas will always be Beta.

    In the eyes of the girl, the Beta is an imp, a donkey, a beast of burden. And more importantly, an eunuch. There is a whole Red Pill literature supporting this with examples aplenty. In the eyes of the girl, the Beta male is a non-human. That is why they express contempt and unimaginable cruelty at them (have you seen divorce laws?).

    Therefore, even if your city has a male-to-female ratio of 99:1, in reality, you are competing against other Alphas and Naturals. Betas will get the scraps regardless.

    Don’t confuse pure numbers with real “volume” of competition. That competition is a Potemkin village. You always have been and always will be competing with relatively few other sex worthy men. And those men are always rare.

    If you are not getting any sex, it is because you are in the wrong box, not due to competition.


    So why is it so hard?

    Have you seen the job market lately? Where the rallying cry of the whole industry is “over 100 applicants per job!”, you are not getting a job due to competition! Well… let me tell you, as the job argument is horseshit, so is the dating equivalent.

    Let’s start with the job market. The reason you are not getting a job is because there are no jobs. Period. If there were jobs, those 100 applicants would be assigned to jobs, even if not immediately, maybe within a short period of time. But the reason they are not assigned into jobs, is because there are no jobs, not because there are 100 applicants.

    Therefore, if your argument is that there is not enough sex to go around. It is because there is no sex happening. Not because there are more dicks in the modern world.

    And now we arrive at the root cause of evil: not the market, not the supply of dicks, not the supply of pussy. Instead, simply that there is no sex happening in general. So why is there no sex happening:

    1. Atomization
    2. Feminism
    3. Anti-male laws
    4. Lifestyle of slavery (better put systematic suppression of agency)

    The system isolates you, makes you overworked, and makes the women hysterical with fantasies of brutality and hatred. That is why there is no sex, because there are no connections between men and women being established. Because those connections are inherently becoming more and more impossible to establish, either via systemic pressure or ideological divergence.

    But the mother of all causes is…


    Sex is initiated from the erect phallus, not the pussy

    If you are any familiar with Red Pill literature, it should be clear that eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. Women don’t need sex as much as men do. Even genetically in humans this is supported: 14-30% of men reproduced vs 80% of women, ever.

    Nature experiments and discards men like there is no tomorrow. If human male was a standalone species, it is facing the worst evolutionary pressure in the entire animal kingdom. Primarily induced by other humans, as homo sapiens himself is an apex predator.

    The whole point is that if women are asked the question to fuck or not fuck, they won’t fuck. Therefore, when the male becomes passive, loses his entrepreneurial power to combine resources with his friends and make things work, then… only women are left to choose when sex happens, and the entire decision falls on their shoulders.

    And as we already said, when women choose, they won’t fuck. They will just milk men for attention and resources (either directly or indirectly via the state).

    I have seen (and had sex with) girls, that if you judged them by their behaviour, you would had said that they are complete sluts. They talk about dick, actively think about it, hit on men, etc. Well, even after clubbing with such women long term, do you know how many guys they fucked? … the best one was 2, over the course of a full year. And that was a girl who would be clubbing solo until 8am, after the rest of the group left.

    Drill this into your head: sex needs male leadership. From meet, to escalation, to bedroom. Leave it to the girls, and no matter what they say, they won’t fuck – sex just won’t happen.

    On the other hand, if males bonded, initiated festivals, parties, and showcased true male competence. The women would relax and be led into intimacy. The Dionysian orgies of antiquity are not what we see in modern clubs. Because ancient Greeks had what you don’t: manly agency and spirit. That is why the 4 reasons stated in the previous section sting so much. Because they take male agency away.

    And with this out of the way, drill the following into your mind.


    Women’s competition is not sexual

    If you had a pussy, you would understand that you could sexually access any totem pole in a 100km vicinity. Even a 6 can jump a male 9 with very little effort. Hence, their competition is not sexual, it is not to grab men. They have undisputed free rein. Their competition is against other girls for a purely materialistic and pervertedly status seeking goal.

    You protest and claim: that even then, women are sexually competing, but they do so for connection and relationship exclusivity. Bollox I say, because what is the purpose of a “relationship” than to parade the man in front of her friends and show them how good of a catch she got. She could very easily get emotional stability and safety nets from her own female social groups. She doesn’t need a man who barely understands what being a girl is.

    All female competition exists for the simple reason of sticking it to other girls. Square and simple. It is not there to access high value men or resources. Take Korea, for example, the place with the most fierce female competition on planet earth: 1 out of 3 women has done facial surgery, and the spending for luxury and fashion is through the roof. If this is not “female competition”, I don’t know what it is.

    So what are these girls competing for? Have you seen Korean men, and their pussified physique and mentality? Nearly all Korean girls I have dated have told me straight: Korean men are very kind and available, but so boring! [because they call me selfish in contrast].

    Regardless, let’s give the benefit of the doubt and assume that there are hidden K-pop stars in the building corners that are monopolizing all sex. Girls, therefore, are competing for this hidden, angel face, Asian sex-ninja. The following numbers are from 2020, presumably better than now:

    • Mean age of first sexual encounter: 22
    • Percentage that had engaged in casual sex: 12% (up to 14% for a 95% Confidence Interval)
    • Sexlessness in the past year: 43% of women and 36% of men reported no sex in 2020-2021

    You can go on with these; we all know the situation is bad. But my point is, if the competition is so fierce, then where the hell is the sex! Where is the horny little Asian man?

    Because that is the whole point, female competition is not about sex! The idea is smoke and mirrors. Female competition is about attention, which originates from pettiness to stick it to other girls. And if you take it too seriously, the whole society will end up going to shit.

  • Filtering and Screening: The Basis of Seduction Theory

    Filtering and Screening: The Basis of Seduction Theory

    Two concepts that should be easy enough to understand, screening and filtering, have sadly led to such wrong conclusions that, where they aimed to provide clarity, have actually produced more confusion. The concepts themselves, on one hand, have to do with awareness of your own actions and what they entail, while on the other hand, they have to do with the randomness of cold approaching.

    In this article, I aim to define things properly and trace them to their natural conclusion.

    The Basic Theory of Seduction

    Well, young buck, I will have you sit at a bench in a crowded area, and I want you to count me how many of the young ladies you would ideally want to have sex with. All chances, if she is a 6 and above, you would happily plug her, given the opportunity was there. Of course, preference would be for the hotter ones, but the bar for just sex would be low.

    Now, lets us consider the dual side of this argument. From among the population of girls that you would like to bone, how many of them would be willing to be boned by you. Chances are, no matter who you are (model, superstar, president), you are open to many more girls than girls are open to you. This is called female choosiness; it has an evolutionary role (pregnancy is costly), and it is a fact of life. Practically, this gap is so large that I wouldn’t be surprised if the ratios are 1000:1 (i.e., for every 1000 girls a male wants to bang, only 1 would be open to them).


    Disclaimer: this is over the entire population.

    Disclaimer 2: Although looks are important, the reality of this ratio shows that beyond a certain level, the futility of looksmaxxing. So what.. you expend all this effort to improve your looks, and the ratio goes up to 950:1? And this practically achieves what, a small ego boost?


    Hence, we arrive at the first roadblock. To have a chance with a girl, you need to find a girl to give you a chance.

    And even then… it spirals further. Some of them would be willing to bang you only if you have X and Y characteristics, which you might not have after you met them. Some others might be willing to bang you after 5 dates, which you might not have the patience for it. Some others might be willing to bang you, but might not be available now (work, boyfriend, logistics). Some others might only be willing to bang you when they are at the correct time of the monthly cycle.

    The bottom line is, even with calibration, the majority of the girls you will open will be No girls. And that makes the need for a discriminatory tool.

    Filtering and Screening: the Toolkit to Reduce Search Costs

    We are ready now to define our two terms precisely. They both have to do with how and when we decide that a girl is either a No girl, or has a low chance to be converted into a lay.


    Filtering: a preplanned behavioural trait that makes uninterested girls unwilling to engage further.


    Screening: An active choice to stop exerting effort for a girl who is possibly unwilling to engage further.


    The core essence of the concepts sounds the same, but different disciplines of Game engage with them differently. For example, in direct Daygame, the street stop and the compliment are the filters themselves. Only the girls who accept the bold initial interest would be willing to stay in the interaction further. On the other hand, a social circle player who organises a big party, inevitably is going to invite No girls, after meeting and interacting with them, he will have to actively screen them out.

    Both of the versions of the discriminatory tool are carrying inaccuracy risks:

    • A filter might be too wide. Maybe some Yes and Maybe girls are going to disengage. Hence, the risk is false negative. [Albeit, the more a girl leans towards Yes, the less likely she is to be filtered out].
    • A screening decision might be inaccurate. In that case, the player might be lured to invest time and effort into a girl who has no real sexual interest in him. Hence, the risk is false positive. [Harder to make a screening decision, the more social value the girl sees in associating with you].

    Theory vs practice

    In practice, you will get to use both tools. It is not an either/or decision, nor can all of the discriminating decisions be implemented into a model; you will have to actively implement infield and adjust in real time.

    In their idolised versions, filters should be on the looser side: filtering out the majority of the No girls and letting the majority of the Yes and Maybe’s in.

    Screening decisions should ideally come from your own inner core: “Is the juice worth the squeeze?”. Now, being able to answer this properly without drifting into celibacy is a delicate act. Hence, I will give you a heuristic: out of your current or potential options, is she the best one? If so, keep engaging with her. That means, only screen a girl out when you realistically can do better infield. As you develop your character more, you can tighten this up.


    Congruency and Incongruency

    I am highlighting this sections specifically, because we are arriving at the main strategic point of the article. A point that is so misunderstood and wrongly used, that is making experienced Players pull their hair when they see it.

    The point I am referring to is this: “Use the information that you are getting via filters“.

    When you apply a filter or a screening question, her response speaks volumes. Don’t pretend you didn’t notice or you don’t think it is enough. Let’s explain this with an example. You just met a girl in a bar, and after greetings, you tease her and she laughs. Then you tease her again and she laughs more. Then you light kino her upper arm with a rapport statement, and she becomes engaged and interested.

    How the hell did you know to pivot into kino + rapport? Well, your teasing was filter in itself. Why in the world would she be laughing if she is not interested/finds you interesting. She passed the filter once, she passed it twice, then you introduce kino and rapport as the next filter. That is how you know to introduce it in the first place. Can you imagine the stupidity if the Players mind were to go “she is laughing to what I say… but this doesn’t mean anything!“.

    Same is true for proactive screening. The date has been going bluntly or boringly, so you decide it is the moment to figure out where you stand, or cut your losses and call it a day. Hence, you decide for a strong, bold escalation statement, for example, you say “let’s sit next to each other”, and then you go for the hug. If she rejects, she rejects; if not, you are on the money. Sounds different, but it is the same idea as before, used proactively. If she passes the test, then you and she are the couple who is already hugging, don’t go backwards on your speaking manner and frame push, she already passed the test!


    Probabilities and statistics

    There is always a risk of things backfiring. Especially when screening, it is more than likely that the girl is aware what’s up. They rarely will give false answers when you are checking her interest level. And if they intentionally do, it is a big red flag on her inner personality.

    The flip side of this risk is that it can backfire. If she fails to pass the filter/screening question, both you and she know she didn’t pass, and hence, a behavioural change to your attitude against her has to happen. You need to punish bad behaviour with aloofness and coldness. Then later you can try to rebuild the bridge, but at least temporarily, you have to react to it.

    Therefore, a test like that is a probabilistic tool. Some times it will work in your favour, sometimes it will not. But this raises a question: why play your chances when you can take the path of least risk?

    And now we arrive at the strategic function of risk. The fact that it is symmetrical. Once both adversaries agree on a coinflip, the probabilities are fixed on that flip and not on other flips. Let’s give an example: you and me want to settle a dispute. We can fight it out, where I have 60% chance to win, and you have 40% chance to win. A friend comes along, and proposes instead to settle it in a game of coinflips (each player has 50% of winning), whoever wins gives 50$ to the loser, and the dispute is over.

    Either the fight or the coinflip represents risk; however, from your perspective, the coinflip is better because you have a higher chance to win. From my viewpoint, maybe the coinflip is also better, because it avoids the risk of long-term harm, hence I might be willing to forfeit the 10% advantage I have over a fistfight. Therefore, we might agree to settle the dispute like that.

    The abstract version of this example goes like this: when you are considering a filter or a screening action, you have a probability of success X. If you do nothing, your long-term probability is Y. The only thing that matters is whether X or Y is higher. Once you make a decision, be consistent with your decision and stick to it.

    The whole point is that risk is always symmetric and it equalizes other advantages. If you have agency of choice to take the 50/50 coinflip over the 40/60 fistfight, then I will be locked into your decision. In Seduction, we as men have the benefit of agency, hence we get to decide which risks to take. The point is to be aware of our decisions and choose the beneficial ones.

    Thesaurus of Seduction BS

    Let’s now take a moment and address some of the BS thrown around in the seduction community. We have both the vocabulary and the theory to back up our conclusions.

    In Indirect Game, Players have higher closing ratios

    Nope. You are making a word play between filtering and screening. In direct Game we apply a filter by giving the statement of intent early. In indirect Game, the filter is only social (will she exchange words with you), then the Player engages sexually with girls only after screening them.

    Hence, you are masking the rejection over a weaker filter and a stronger screening process. It is a wordplay, not efficiency. The only advantage indirect Game has over direct is the timeframe to implement tools like pre-section and social proof. But this comes at a setup and time cost.

    In direct Daygame, you are giving your value away by complimenting her

    Again, nope. Don’t confuse filter with value calculations. Maybe the act itself is slightly pedestalizing, but thinking like this is missing the point.

    Among the girls who are available to you to lay via Daygame, losing some of your value in the compliment is irrelevant (I would argue you don’t even lose value if done right). The opener is the first big filter, and among the girls who pass this filter, you have value to spare either way. From among the girls who don’t pass the filter, we don’t care! They will likely never bang you to begin with!

    Time is on your side, you can always take it slow

    No, she controls the speed of seduction as well. She does so via how she passes your screening and filtering questions. If she showcases excessive interest in those, you need to match her.

    If you don’t, it will introduce incongruency based on the discussion we had before. Many a time, going faster is better than slow. And many a time, you are on an invisible timer.

  • Emotional Reading: Micro-Calibration in Daygame

    Emotional Reading: Micro-Calibration in Daygame

    Prelude

    This article is a spiritual continuation of the earlier digression on Mindfulness and the role of the brain shaping reality itself. This time, we will focus on the practical application of emotions detection. We will do so by investigating Paul Ekman and his research on this topic. Well, then… take it away!



    Introduction

    We are posing a question, in order to regulate emotions, achieve emotional control, and much more importantly, use this knowledge for any benefit infield, we need to ask: what are emotions, and where do they come from? Because there exists no emotion without a cause, and when the discussion starts from the emotions and expands outwards (I feel X, therefore Y…), it is doomed to miss the point. There is always a Z before: Event Z cause feeling X, therefore Y…

    Emotions, at the bare minimum of their definition, are internal interpreters of external states of the world. When you stand at the edge of a cliff, your hands start sweating, and you call this fear. Then it is not the fear that warns you that standing there is dangerous; instead, it is the essence of the situation – that it is dangerous – that is causing the fear, which you understand emotionally.

    Proving this, that emotions are a hidden language of the unconscious part of the brain, is not hard, as you saw. Explaining the root cause of this language is a bit more complicated. Because the root cause where we will be able to interpret that language, and hence make practical use of it. I will present two theories that have been used in various ways by the seduction community and provide my own thoughts and commentary.

    Paul Ekman – Innate emotions

    There is a case to be made that emotions have to serve some evolutionary purpose. They are a product of successive generations, no different than your height or eye color is. And in no different way than hunger aims to make you find food, so emotions are there to help you survive in the social battlefield of Homo Sapiens.

    Take this theory to its natural conclusion, and you will end up with the following observations:

    • Emotions should have consistent building blocks. Not unlike taste has 5 basic receptors. This will be the response signals that the body is reacting to.
    • These basic emotions should be in every human and every culture. Hence, be universal. This is what it means to be hardwired and innate.
    • These basic emotions, since they are universal, should have a bodily expression that is again universally present. Not unlike a hiccup or yawning have their functions.

    Hence, starting from this viewpoint, that emotions are hardwired and evolved like any other trait; we have a baseline to what to look for.


    The basic emotions

    This is where Paul Ekman comes in. The consensus from the outcome of his research is that there are 7 basic emotions, and every other emotion is a combination of these:

    • Happiness
    • Contempt
    • Sadness
    • Anger
    • Surprise
    • Disgust
    • Fear

    Each of these emotions has a specific purpose of existence, and it is a response to something external. Hence, solidifying their hardwired nature. In particular:

    Take a moment to study this chart, because the way the emotions are expressed, are related to their triggers. For example anger causes you to frown, in order to focus the eyes on the threat (the cause of anger). Fear makes your eyes wide open, in order to be able to absorb more information from your surroundings, etc.


    Universality of Expression

    The second point of this excursion is that emotions are universal. That means every human being is going to exhibit them in the same way. Hmm… let’s think about that last part.

    Emotions are not something within our control; they are externally induced – that is what the theory implies. If you stand next to a hungry lion, all humans will feel fear, and that fear is going to be expressed in the face, in the same way for all. We have a window to the hidden language of the soul.

    If you learn how to read these emotions from their so-called facial expressions or micro-expressions, then you will know what the other person is feeling (i.e., his true interpretation of the situation), despite what he is saying, he thinks or think he feels. Well, what should we look for then?

    The main areas of focus are eyebrows, eyes, lips, and cheeks. The upper portion of the face (eyebrows, eyelids and checks) has to do with directing attention for the eyes, not unlike how a cat’s ears are going to move to the direction of the sound. Opening the eyes more means absorb more information, while frowning or squeezing means focusing attention. The lower part, mouth, lips and its surroundings has to do with either showing teeth (universal sign of aggression in the animal kingdom), or priming you to scream, shout, or make other relevant sounds (for example think of a girl’s scream in response to danger that aims to draw attention to her). I will provide a full summary below:

    Click the emotion here for a relevant infographic from Ekman directly as well: Happiness, Sadness, Surprise, Disgust, Contempt, Anger, Fear.


    Practical usefulness

    Most of these emotions flash on people’s faces for milliseconds. Therefore, the window to the soul is very short. It requires some training and practice to quickly catch flickering emotions. I believe there are training tools from Ekman exactly for this. A micro-expression is flashed of 0.2 to half a second, then you are asked what you saw.

    There you have it, this is the practical Game application, determining the state of the girl from her facial expressions. It will not make her like you more or anything, but at least it will let you know if she already likes you. If you say something that you thought should make her smile, but she flashes an anger face, you should micro-calibrate and change topics.

    This can be especially useful in social forms of Game, eg, nightgame and social circle, where the Player needs to balance multiple conflicting interests between the members. Additionally, social games will make people act against their true intentions. Hence, true emotional detection can yield dividends.

    The easiest way to begin with this, is to study the diagram I provided above, the photographs linked form Ekman, and then try to detect emotions in real life. Don’t sweat over it, begin with simple and easy emotions to catch (the more intense the feeling in the person, the more pronounce will be its facial expression), and then work your way from there. In theatre specifically, actors are trained to exaggerate facial emotions, so that is a good source of intel as well. I would urge to do this outside of your normal approach sessions, because those are already overload it with other variables. Implement emotional detection only when you have mastered it and it comes as second nature.


    Against Paul Ekman

    Now that I have presented his theory in full, it is time to critique it. Albeit marginally useful in practice, this is not a theory I personally advocate. In the next entry of this series, I will discuss the constructed theory of emotion, something that I believe is a more sound interpretation.

    Criticism against Paul Ekman is multifold, so let us see some of it.

    Methodology

    Ekman’s theory is essentially voted by consensus. Ekman ran around the world, asked people, “Does this look like happiness?” and if enough people agreed, he distilled his core facial expressions of happiness. Rinse and repeat for the other emotions as well.

    This is something that sounds plausible, but it is as reliable as asking people with a questionnaire about their sexual lives and the causes of attraction. It can work, you might be collecting garbage data.

    Universality

    Much of the so-called universality of emotions stems from the fact that all cultures shown a picture of happiness, agreed that this looks like happiness. In particular, hunter-gatherers around the world agreed, which made a strong case that the emotion has evolved and is hardwired. Nothing wrong with this, this is how most of sociological theory is generated (that is why I feel the whole field is trash), but at least you would expect maturity on his data gathering process…

    Actual accounts of his field reports when he was in contact with primitives would suggest very unethical behaviour in testing his hypothesis. He was forcing answers based on yes/no questions that were heavily biased. This is not even hidden, this is from his actual papers and journal entries.

    Emotional intelligence

    Many of the so-called EQ tests (the emotional equivalent of IQ) around the world test specifically his theory. They provided images of certain basic emotions and ask participants which emotion they saw. The more emotions people can detect, the higher their EQ.

    For example…

    Albeit sound in theory, I believe this practice is at best retarded, because it beats the purpose. On one hand, Ekman came up with his emotions by asking people “Is this emotion X” and taking consensus votes. On the other hand, when he presents his theory as a universal EQ test, the scores are quite bad. So what gives?


    The useful part of his theory

    There can be some debate whether this theory is correct and how much useful it is for Game, however, there is one aspect that should be mentioned. It is not about the emotions themselves or their expression, it is about the way we create hypotheses in lie detection.

    The official version from Ekman says: if there is a contradiction between verbals and facial expressions, then facial expression is the truth. The verbals get trumped, so the person lies.

    Fair enough, let’s put this train of thought on a different framework. Before any action, make your hypothesis, for example:

    • If I give this person 5$, she should be happier.

    Now gauge that person’s reaction. Was she happier when she received the free money? If not, for example, she became startled or even felt guilty about it, then… this is not a lie, but hold that thought! That is a window to her inner character.

    Her reaction is what it is, so you need to ask: why would she not be happy about getting the free money? New hypothesis based on this intel and we are already one step closer at profiling her character. For example, we now know for sure she is not a person that likes to take advantage of others, or receive undeserved rewards

    Whatever your new hypothesis on her personality, this is an informed step forward; this is the key to advanced empathy!


    In the next entry of this series, we will explore the constructed theory of emotion, an alternative to Ekman, that considers emotions as a fabrication of the brain.

  • You Misunderstand the Sexual Marketplace

    You Misunderstand the Sexual Marketplace

    The Sexual Market Place is a parable. It is meant to represent a model and a model only. A predictive and useful model that nails the task of implanting the basics of Red Pill into the student. Its usefulness ends there. Because the SMP is not a tool for self-actualization. Excelling at the “market” is not your purpose in life. Cascades from this idea lead to all sorts of perversions and discussions on Game and Value that ultimately miss the point.

    What is your purpose in life and Game

    Are you in Game to bang girls? Are you in Game for the hedonistic purpose of sticking your dick into women?

    Have you ever had pointless sex to understand the emptiness of sex just for sex? Using the girl as a masturbation machine to be forgotten the next day? It is not worth it like that; this is alleviating the symptom, not the cause. At the end of the day, paying a whore will always be effort positive towards you. Even at advanced stages of Game, if Game were to be just a “job” to “buy” sex, then I guarantee you, working overtime on your normal job and hiring an escort instead is the play.

    So, the point is not about the sex. Well, let me tell you it is not about women either. Have you seen animals in the zoo, bears do this and monkeys do this: they make bored, silly faces, all life sucked out of them… and they masturbate. Masturbation symbolizing the emptiness of their existence. They never do this in nature… maybe, have they been hyper-sexualized?

    Do you see my point now? When you think of women and think of adventure, companionship, and connection – depending on which angle you observe the thought – you are missing the point. You find this adventure, companionship, and connection in them only because you have no other way to find those.

    Do you have any friends? True male friends to bond over the hunt and campfire like your ancestors did? Can you roam into the forest and be truly free, do whatever you like, explore however you like, let your curiosity run wild? Of course you can’t; that’s why you are regressing to seeking that in women.

    Don’t get me wrong, in the modern world, you don’t have any alternatives. All space is owned by some state or another, and they will force you to submit to their petty and arbitrary rules. The times when you could enforce your own justice based on the strength of your ability and might are long gone now. Same is true of your connections. Respect is a concept long gone. Because respect for another man comes from a shared understanding of good and beauty. But no such thing is possible in the cult of identity. Uniqueness for the sake of uniqueness. Brokenness and incoherence everywhere that makes the man weak. Even if you could find your so-called “true friends”, you would be too weak to achieve much of anything.

    The hunting part of courtship is the only space that is relatively unmoderated. This with an asterisk. On one hand, courtship that is primarily regulated by hormones has to be free. Because the hormones themselves bow to no rules. The wildness of the female spirit and sexuality, is still that, unregulated wildness. On the other hand, the social programming of the last 60 years has invaded exactly that free and wild space. It invokes petty rules and boundaries even in the realm of courtship. That is the one true reason many of us find satisfaction in more feminine cultures, with so-called traditional gender roles. These are just cultures where the female spirit hasn’t been constrained.

    But understand this: satisfaction in Game comes from the adventure. It doesn’t come from the fucking. It is you, your skills, and the wildness of the social battlefield. You are on a raid to conquer. The loot is just that… the cherry on top. The adventure itself is your true purpose.

    I strongly disagree that replication is our purpose in life, taking precedence over many other functions. I believe copulation and the generation of new life in humans is an instinct that only kicks in after a sufficient level of self-actualization. At the basic level, think the fate of the mantis, where he is being beheaded from the female while he is sticking his dick into her. Do you not feel the aversion to this fate? Do you not feel the aversion of your life purpose being reduced to a shoot of sperm, carrying half of your genetic composition? On the non-basic level, think of the fate of the depressed millionaire. Spending his days on his dark head, with life having no meaning – that is success with no meaning. Is popping a kid into a woman the thing that will give him purpose in life? Are you mad?

    There is a higher force and a higher satisfaction that comes from a successful seduction. It is not mechanics, and it is not gene propagation only. It is the act of achievement, the use of skillset, the creation of something out of nothing. There is a bottom version of seduction – the fucking. There is a higher and noble version of it – the art. That is why picking up a slut from the dance floor at 4am feels empty, that is why fucking a whore feels empty.


    The Sexual Market Place

    Sufficient iterations of Game and intersexual theory have gone to incredible depths. Knowledge of male and female psychology has never been understood better than to this day. The SMP, however, with all its genius, is just a perversion of the concepts. Because the SMP is meant to signify a signpost, a scientific and predictive tool, not a thing in itself. It doesn’t exist as a fixed structure; it only exists on the first level of abstraction – not a true representation, instead, a low-resolution image.

    So what is the issue with the SMP? By acknowledging its existence, you have given yourself a new set of rules and boundaries to trap you. The point of Game is the conquering. You have your skillset, and you need to apply it to make something out of nothing. You are not a point in the SMP graph; you are a range of points, all conditional on how you use your social skills in the short to medium term. There is no fair exchange, there is only “risk assessment” to where your skills can take you. The SMP is guidelines, what is good and what is bad, but under no circumstances should it be viewed as an absolutist list of prices, what X in male value can buy Y in female value. Because your X doesn’t exist, as a man, you make that X. Static value is only for women, that is the curse of looks. And you should be thankful for it, because static value implies no agency.

    All this leads to my next point. The issues that spring from taking the SMP too literally. That is the Online Game type of guy: Looksmaxx, get your finances in order and get your value sky-high. Then girls will pick you, bro! Putting effort is for Betas! Does that sound fun to you? Did you already forget the purpose of Game we discussed above? By acknowledging that mindframe, you already forfeited the challenge of the adventure for the perversion that is lack of agency. You do X and optimize Y, then you expect the teacher to come to you, say “Good boy”, and give you a girl to pork. It is fundamentally a weak and reactive position. And it will stay like this, regardless of you tapping a girl here or a girl there. You are the depressed millionaire in search for meaning.

    That exactly is the difference that gives meaning or not. Expecting to chart your own path vs waiting someone to praise you for excelling at something. From the former, SMP is a navigating tool; from the latter, SMP is a prison no different than the one you had before. The SMP doesn’t have a predetermined slot with your name on it. You force yourself into the SMP, and you make that slot for you. And you only occupy that slot in the moment and in context, not universally. That is only the correct way of understanding it, and by extension, understanding Red Pill in general.

  • Mindfulness in Daygame: Being in the Moment and Vibe

    Mindfulness in Daygame: Being in the Moment and Vibe

    Crazy idea to bring mindfulness to this blog. I don’t personally advocate or actively practice it, but some fundamental concepts are particularly important for Game and we will cover them. Before anything, let’s put everything in order.

    Basic Summary

    Mindfulness is the practice of bringing your focus on what is called “here and now”, the present moment. Take a moment… breathe… pause and focus on your toes of your legs, move them around… maybe now focus on the feeling of the air in your skin… you can feel it, warm and soft right? Focus on the sounds and the images around you… turn off your brain and just observe. This is the “here and now” – the present moment.

    By doing this, assuming you sufficiently turned off your brain from its logical functions, you should feel the world much more vibrant, you should have felt more alive, and with excitement building up inside of you. Crazy right? There are two directions to understand the concept, one stemming from Eastern mysticism with a focus on meditation and the other from a neuroscientific perspective. You can already guess the direction we will take, so strap on for the latter.

    The basic idea comes from brain functions. Brain itself is a very recent invention of evolution, and even more so is the ability to use logic (the voice in your head), and even, even more so, is the ability to maintain memory and future projection. The running narrative is that humans are the only animals that can “remember” and “think ahead”; in contrast, all of what we call skill and learning in other animals is akin to Pavlovian response, just hardwired behaviour.

    You protest… how is that even possible to be arrogant like this? Well… let’s understand this from an even more basic concept: the concept of theory of mind. For a behaviour to be non-Pavlovian, it has to be able to independently respond to signals. You ring the bell, then there is a processing moment, then the dog decides to salivate or not, depending on whether you gonna bring food to it. That would be the non-Pavlovian version, correct?

    For this to happen, the subject (the dog) should be able to understand the setting, think from your perspective (i.e., whether you intend to bring it food or not), and then decide to make the connection that bell implies food is suitable or not for this occasion. If the subject decides to think only from its perspective (“what I think is correct” – without second-guessing), disregarding the rest of the signals, then the pre-established response “bell → food” would automatically dominate all alternatives. Precisely this distinction – perspective shift – makes the difference between a sovereign skill (choose how and when to use it) and a scheduling or input/output task, not unlike how a computer operates. Therefore, for a skill to not be hardwired, theory of mind is a prerequisite.

    Ok, we have something measurable now… which animals display theory of mind? Which animals can think from different perspectives? This is limited to only some apes, primates, and dogs. To understand this, think of the following experiment: point with your finger at a toy; if you are with a cat, the cat will just stare at your finger, failing to understand what pointing means. If you are with a dog, the dog will understand that pointing means not the finger itself, but to redirect attention to the direction of the finger, the finger leads to the toy! This is the difference between theory of mind and not.

    All well and good so far, but our original objective was to arrive at the concept of past and future. Well, past and future can only exist if there is theory of mind, otherwise, there is no use for the function, it might as well be hardwired. The whole point of past and future is to make an action sovereign, to give nuance to it. Hence, their existence only makes sense if they are practical, and they can only be practical with presence of theory of mind.

    However, let us investigate the current literature in memory. Because the concept of memory is not a simple mental replaying of events, it is an active reconstruction of the scene based on limited information. It is not a movie, it is an active process, and a very inconsistent one at that. Time and time again, the malleability of human memory and its own self-falsification is observed. Even when people were 100% convinced of certain facts based on their memory, the reality proved to be quite different. This has been documented in trials and courts, with victims being convinced that the perpetrator was a totally innocent person. Therefore, not only theory of mind is a prerequisite for the usefulness of “memory”, but memory itself is the same as future projection: they are the same mental system. The past and the future are both just a fleeting reconstruction of events in the brain, and in the brain only.

    Therefore… what is happening with past, present and future? From our prior discussion, past and future are mental simulations… but does the present exist, or is it also a brain trick? Well… it doesn’t either. The present moment cannot exist as a thing in itself due to the nature of the sense organs: vision, hearing, touch, etc. The sensor, for example, the eyes, has to collect the signal and send it into brain, then the brain has to process the signal into an image. But signal collection operates at different speeds and at different stages of processing. Vision is collected faster than sound (because light travels faster than sound), but has to go through a more complicated path in the brain before it ends up as a mental image. Sound is collected slower, but actually processed faster. Therefore, when you sit opposite to your friend and you watch him speak, the “image part” is collected and processed at different speeds than the “sound” part. But you don’t experience your friend with sound delay, the “image” and “sound” parts are synced…. because the brain is playing tricks on you!

    What you experience as “here and now” is actually “just a moment in the past”, the brain collected all the signals, processed them, and synced them together. Fundamentally, you cannot experience the “now” as now; when you experience it, it has already passed a moment ago.

    Hierarchies in the brain

    Hmm… past/future is a scam… and now is also a scam… so what gives? Well, they are both brain simulations, but they use different systems in the brain. The past/future system is much more recent and hence primitive in its function. Evolution just didn’t experiment enough on it to perfect it. The here and now system, on the other hand, is shared with the majority of the animal kingdom and is quite efficient and effective at its job. This is why you can turn off the voice in your head and still function. However, for our purposes, we will focus on a specific difference between the two systems.

    Dopamine

    The brain uses neurochemicals to interpret the world, as has been mentioned multiple times in this blog, what we call happiness is a mix of:

    • Oxytocin
    • Dopamine
    • Endorphins
    • Serotonin

    Unusual release of those chemicals leads to various feelings of happiness, while withdrawal leads to the opposite. In particular, the brain itself becomes accustomed to certain states, for example, if there are 5 units of dopamine constantly released, then the brain will consider this as the new normal, requiring 6 units to detect a difference and translate it as “excitement” (note: the same is true with the other chemicals, not unique to dopamine). The kicker is… that the past/future system only responds to dopamine; it simply doesn’t register the other chemicals [The Molecule of More – Lieberman and Long].

    The big happiness shift you feel when you switch to here and now is the perception of the other chemicals in your brain’s thought process and functions. That is why you feel more connected to the world when practicing mindfulness… the effect of oxytocin! Oxytocin is also responsible for the feeling of satisfaction and contentment. Dopamine, on the other hand, is responsible for feelings of excitement, but lacks satisfaction or payoff at the end of it. There is a famous experiment: Scientists hooked up electrodes into a rats brain and connected them to a button. If the rat would press the button it would excite his dopamine centers, leading to the rush/excitement feeling. What happened was that once the rat discovered the mechanism, he became incredibly restless. He would maniacally press the button forgoing food and sleep, eventually leading to his death.

    This is the curse of not living in the now; you forfeit your right to oxytocin and the feeling of “enough, I am happy now”. You maniacally chase and chase with no end! You cannot find happiness in your head! You can only find it in the now. If you still don’t believe me, take it from ancient worms [A brief history of intelligence – Bennet]. Primitive creatures that have survived to this day and age, and their functions have been studied by scientists in relation to dopamine/oxytocin. The worms have only one receptor to detect the concentration of food in their environment, not unlike how smell functions for humans. The worms operate on two axes:

    • Worm is hungry: excrete dopamine → initiate action, move towards food.
    • Worm is full: excrete oxytocin → initiate chilling mode, ignore food.

    There is no simpler way to showcase the interplay of dopamine/oxytocin than this. Stick in your head, stick with dopamine, and you operate only in the first mode.

    How to do this

    Well, we made a case for the here and now. How do we use it in practice? There is no science to it, you just need to train your mind to calm down and focus on stuff positive to now and contrary to past/future. That is where all the advice boils down to. Here are some examples:

    • Turn of your logical brain, think nothing at all for a minute or two.
    • Slow your movements, focus on the feelings of your body.
    • If need, start small, start on your breath or focus on your fingers and tows. Try to move the attention upwards.
    • Focus on your surroundings, the feelings and the sounds of people, this will activate oxytocin and take you to present.

    Remember, girls are naturally averse to logic, or better put, naturally focused on oxytocin and serotonin. This helps them bond, i.e., understand the social game better, and to later extend care and tend for babies. Especially in Daygame, it is too much to ask them to enter our Male default state (logic), so we enter theirs. It is to our benefit as well, oxytocin naturally speeds up connection, and serotonin naturally establishes power structures (via status), i.e., humor! When coaches advocate to get out of your head, it is precisely for these reasons!


    This post is blowing up in size and scope. Stay tuned for part two, where I will analyse the prominent theories on the origins of emotions and their connection to the groundwork established here.