You might argue that the tactic is merely pathological. However the pathology that underlies it is common and strategic. Keep men afraid of the wrath of the spurned woman.

The “you break it, you buy it” attitude towards vagina is a female centric notion that is instinctive. Just as a newborn butterfly can instinctively migrate to a single tree thousands of miles away, women instinctively know that men must be forced, by any and all means necessary, into a “you break it you’ve bought it” mentality. Provisioning is the instinctive cost of pussy.

False rape accusations are just one extreme way to enforce this policy. “He didn’t call me afer. Rape!”

Thinking that admirable behavior is “alpha” is one of the defining characteristics of betas and white knights.

Alpha = the quantity and quality of pussy. If being “admirable” got you lots of high quality lays the the entire Game culture would never have come into existence.

I’m not sure that only betas want to conflate admirable with alpha. It’s a habit of mind to think unclearly and emotionally in this fashion, and to want to lump together good things. If alpha is good, and if admirable is good, then alpha and admirable must belong to the same set.

Not all people learn to think in more nuanced ways, and of those that do not all usually bother.

My favorite method to clarify thinking is to think in terms of sets. Remember in kindergarten when the teacher drew overlapping circles on the board, and drew in labels and objects into the circles and where the circles intercepted? Red, blue, round, triangular. We learned to think of domains of attributes, and see how in some cases they overlap. You can have red shapes, you can have red triangles, blue shapes, blue triangles, and you can have blue balls.

I’ve noticed that the unclear thinkers tend to not think mathematically like this. They don’t notice what are the labels for the domains, and don’t notice where the domains intersect and where they do not.

One such arrangement of domains has these labels:
One big circle labeled attractive traits
Inside this circle many smaller circles labeled as every other trait that is attractive to women, ,such as height, social power, financial power, leadership, style, handsome face, good physique, athletic ability, wit, charm, and confidence. All the smaller domains can intersect with any of the other domains.

Some people are not actually capable of visualizing such domains of attraction, and in their mind can only legitimize one or a few of them as being real, or else they conflate many domains to being aspects of other domains, for instance saying that height is actually a circle inside the circle of confidence, because height makes you confident and if you are confident you don’t need height.

Some people never learned their kindergarten math lessons, and don’t care to. Emotional thinking has sufficed up through to their adult years.

So called adult years.

There’s nothing wrong with solitude. You don’t need anyone else to make you happy. Break your programming, accept yourself, and just enjoy the ride. Life is too short to be tied down. You need somebody to talk to? Why? At the end of the day, what doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger. Be a man and learn from your mistakes on your own. You want to be loved? Look in the mirror and find it within yourself.

This advice is not suitable for everyone. For some people it is simply wishful thinking, and is not true and will never be true.

Some of us have a sex drive and have emotional and social needs that can not be met adequately in any other way other than with women.

It is a lie that all or even most men can be happy without women, and that all they have to do is find some internal balance to do so.

I’m speaking as a man who has spent years seriously devoted to internal alchemy, both on my own and with the help of a good Buddhist community. I’ve spent years studying and practicing various meditations, lived for months in solitary meditation retreat several times, lived for many months in a Buddhist monastery, and lived for many months in a non-monastic isolated Buddhist community setting.

I’m reminded of the T.M. meditators who believe that if they try real hard, and if they accomplish some internal alchemy, they will be able to fly.

They spend a great deal of time hopping in the lotus position.

The fact that none of them has ever flown doesn’t stop their very strong belief. It only seems to re-enforce it. If people haven’t flown, it’s only evidence that they didn’t try hard enough and didn’t believe hard enough.

The fact is that people get lonely, and that the cure for loneliness is not an acceptance of solitude – it’s company. People get horny and the cure for horniness is not porn – it’s women. Humans are built with levers, pulleys and buttons arranged in specific configurations. There is only so much internal re-arranging you can do – you can not re-design your brain wholesale. A very deep need that does not go away for healthy men is the need for sex and love and relations with women. It’s akin to the need for food and oxygen. It’s not a belief that can be altered by other beliefs. It’s a hard wired necessity.

Some of us find it difficult to focus and feel like we are climbing the walls and get depressed and anxious and feel desperately uncomfortable if we don’t at minimum have access to regular sex.

The cure for those negative feelings is sex. Then life becomes very pleasurable.

A man should accept the fact he will be alone at times, and that the only real love comes within, while getting some pussy in the process. I think some people are just emotionally different, cause I can care less if I’m around people. I prefer solitude… either than the occasional dick wetting session.

Ya, that’s the philosopy I often hear. “A man should accept the fact he will be alone at times, and that the only real love comes within”

That sounds really good. But its quite philosophical. Is it practical? Is it possible? I’m saying that for some of us, it is not possible. It doesn’t and can’t happen. Some of us are simply not happy being alone for too long.

Personally I start to feel uncomfortable at the two week mark, and extremely uncomfortable at the one month mark.

I know that some people don’t feel this way. But those people have nothing useful to say about my personal experience. Some of us are better off learning how to get steady access to what makes us happy rather than focusing on how to live without it. Because we’ve tried living without it and it is extremely uncomfortable.

It’s like someone with a high threshold for pain advising others that when they go to the dentist that they really don’t need to use pain killer. For the guy sitting in the dentists chair, that’s all very philosophical. Pain isn’t philosophical, and no one wants to feel it. The cure for pain is not philosophy. And the cure for unbearable loneliness and horniness is not self acceptance.

Not for all of us, anyway. And I think not for most of us.

Sex like food? Nah, how many times we heard that? Without food we die. And without sex? If it were true, a lot of betas would be dead right now and the population would be very smaller.

Perhaps the metaphor puts it a little strongly. What metaphor would you use to convey that sex and companionship is a base need built into most humans? Because there is a word called “loneliness”, I know I’m not the only person who feels this psychological requirement for intimacy.

Most humans are wired, through millions of years of evolution, to feel uncomfortable when not in a position to mate, and to feel satisfied when in such a position.

It’s not a philosophical issue of whether we can be satisfied alone and whether we need sex or not. We simply have those feelings, and nothing other than sex and intimacy makes us feel better. And nothing in the world – no drug, no other experience – feels as good on a consistent moment to moment day by day basis as that initial flush of being romantically involved.

Therefore I propose that serial or parallel monogamy, with changing up the girls from every 6 months to two years is the path that will lead to maximizing happiness, well-being and life satisfaction for those of us who are not strongly family and child oriented.

Reading stuff like this at 16 is very depressing. While it may teach me how to achieve better success with women, it makes me not want to.

Sure, I want sex. But more importantly, in the long term, I want understanding and love. Knowing that a moment of weakness will shatter any girl’s interest is impossible to accept.

Our strong sense of identity makes it difficult to realize that our habits of mind change dramatically over time. Although at your young age you have seen dramatic changes in identity every few years, you haven’t yet seen that many of them. You may also assume that once you are an adult that you will have a stable identity. It isn’t so; you can expect to have a very different identity every 5 years or so.

And so the self that grieves for a lost hope of relating with women as equal caring partners devoted to love may not have the same attitudes once you become a self who is proficient at attracting and maintaining attraction with women, and who has had intimate relations with many women and seen again and again the good, the bad, and the ugly in them.

Your grief now is temporary because the man who grieves will no longer be around.

Your identity will have to change to adjust to the new painful information. No self want’s to exist in a state of turmoil and angst for long.

You’ll have several options for adapting to this new information. Some of them will lead to a harmonious, healthy and happy integration of all information, and you’ll be able to smile inside and feel warm when you think of women.

Some adaptations would lead you to avoid women and to think poorly of them.

Some adaptations would lead you to see them as inferior beings to be exploited ruthlessly for advantage and for sadistic pleasure.

If people can go through the stages of grief and come to acceptance of death, and still enjoy the pleasures of living, you can come to terms with the facts of women, and still love and enjoy them for what they are.

What type of duties And expectations should I demand ?

Well, what do you need in your life?

At this point I know what I do well and want to focus on, and what I want help with. I do the creative big picture entrepreneurial stuff, and I need employees and a mate to handle details. The mate gets gopher work, domestic duties, and sometimes light secretarial or simple fabrication jobs.

I have a strong expectation that the woman handle the cooking and cleaning. All of it. Oh, I might cook if I have a whim, but the expectation is that delicious meals are handed to me on time and with love and eager anticipation for praise.

Her job description allows for her arrange for help with her tasks or to sometimes fetch restaurant food instead of cooking. She manages her domain of responsibility, as long as my needs are satisfied.

Some girls will take up such an attitude from the first date, others will need acclimation. Use a combination of the fast and slow methods. The bucking bronco method of bending a woman to your will is to have hard and fast expectations and jump right on and accept nothing less. The slow method is to draw her in by gentle acclimation, graded step by gradated step, with no hint of the final outcome.

In order to combine the two approaches you simply keep your attitude of what you want and expect out of a girl, but don’t demand all of it from her in particular. Gently introduce her to duties. You might start by always ordering in food, but then ask her to cook a meal. If it sucks, don’t eat it. Have standards. Over time have her try again. Increase the frequency. Go shopping with her for food ingredients. Eventually have her go shopping by herself. Shop with her for cookbooks. If you are giving appropriate feedback and praising good behaviors consistently and ignoring most bad behaviors and angrily punishing the most extreme negative behaviors, eventually she will discover that all along she really wanted to cook you food.

She’ll take it as natural to her character to do something that was initially in opposition to her attitudes.

I needed large changes all around in my current girl, so I told her of my project. “I’m going to make a woman out of you”. My end goal was to have her change her tomboy fashion style to be sexy and feminine, change her fearful asexuality and reliance on pure heart based romance to a fusion of horny orgasmic passion with love, and change her proud fiery independent career oriented attitude to one of soft caring doting. I told her “I’m going to make a woman out of you”.

A year later she tells me how proud she is of the changes I’ve made in her, and she laughs to remember the girl she was.

Each step along the way as you see changes, praise. Praise, ignore, and punish, and go neither too slow nor too fast. Have your big picture, but go step by step.

But we all need to maintain our communist leanings. Just watch A Christmas Carol and see how Ebenezer found his communist spirit.

Socialism is born from our innate desires to care for the less fortunate, and to be a contributing member of a group. It’s something you can take too far, and it’s something good that makes us human. Those leanings are nothing to create an economic system out of. Communism is anti-evolutionary as it protects the weak, and yet we did evolve those leanings through group selection – one group of us competing against another. It’s helpful to the group to have a hive mind. Especially when it is a contingent hive mind where personal sacrifice kicks in during crisis or special events, and is not a default state.

Our socialist leanings help to make for a good Christmas. We need them in order to feel that special brand of good.

Here are some technologies that give men hand. Can you think of more?

* male contraception
* female economic disempowerment, through either technological collapse bringing about a devaluation of female labor, or new technologies that favor male strengths.
* alternate sexual releases for men, such as sex-bots or realistic whole body stimulation virtual reality immersions
* ability to earn income not bound to location through the internet, and therefore abandon unwanted children or escape personal threats, or skip out on divorce theft. The man must therefore be with or benefit the woman volitionally, and the girl must constantly prove her worth.
* ability to socialize on the net and get bidders to be mates from all around the world
* anything that gives men more of what a woman wants and that she can’t get by herself – be it resources, status by association, unusually good sex, excitement, romance, adventure, or even drama. So any technology that makes men relatively more economically powerful, higher in status, or have better charismatic skills.
* any technology that gives to men more of what they can currently only get from women.

I think you could count psychological tactics as a technology. Advantage to men also comes when men learn to psychologically manipulate women. A smart man can be many times superior than women in this, and can gain an overwhelming psychological advantage over his mate. We start out behind, but we can catch up and overcome women in this matter.

Update:
David Collard commented

The Internet allows men to compare notes across the world about their local women.

How could I have forgotten such a major game changer. Men can now network to get information on the female condition. This breath of experience would have taken the rare man who even tried decades of personal experience to get. And although I haven’t come across it yet, yes we could even network about the habits of specific women.

Hi Xsplat,

I’ve stumbled upon this comment of yours:

Which reminds me of a game principle that I invented. Get the girl to physically act in ways the show she is in love with you.

You know how it’s said that if you smile, your mood will improve?

Same principle.

Enforce the outward, and the inward will follow.

Have you already discussed this principle on your blog? If so, where? If not so, would you please write some practical examples?

I touched on the idea here http://xsplat.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/the-architectural-tone-of-your-relationship/ .

The idea is a basic principle, and if you grok it you can improvise with it. You’ve probably heard that if you smile, you’ll be more cheerful, and if you frown, you’ll be more down. How we hold ourselves and what we do is actually interpreted by our brain as meaning that we had the inner state and inner intention to do those actions.

So the trick is to get the girl to behave as if she is head over heels in love. That will get her to interpret her actions such that she is.

The prime and most important example of this is to get her accustomed to taking commands. Get her to act doting. Depending on the girl, it can take her time to get acclimated to this attitude, but start where you can and build on it. With proper reinforcement for good behaviors, ignoring most bad behaviors, and punishing the worst, she’ll find herself happy in her new attitude, and wondering why she was ever different.

It’s been a while since I was sucked into that, so I don’t talk about those issues anymore. The last time a girl took off her mask to reveal her lizard innards I bolted. I didn’t stick around for even one small piece of crazy, and as I pulled away, she upped her crazy, causing me to pull away more, in a relationship death spiral that led to suicide threats, and threats against my health and safety. And much more.

But before learning how to say no to emotional terrorism, I had previously been sucked into intimacy with BPD insanity. A bunch of times. This website is a great resource, and an interesting read. www.shrink4men.com

I’m going to go ahead and steal a full article from there now. It doesn’t have the usual focus of the website, which is dealing with escaping crazy girlfriends, but instead focuses on today’s crazy marriage laws. I recommend to all men, whether they are over being with crazy girls, in the middle of being with a nutjob, or if they haven’t yet fallen for that special ticking time bomb of shit, to check out the full website.

Marriage and Divorce: A Rigged Game for Men, But Also Ultimately Bad for Women and Children

Written by Dr Tara J. Palmatier on September 28, 2011 

If you’re a man considering marriage, there are some statistics you should know before you go ring shopping.

Today, more than 50% of marriages in the U.S. end in divorce.

What many people don’t know is that women initiate approximately 70% of all divorces. Interesting, since men as a gender are the ones who are typically shamed for being commitment phobic and not willing to settle down.

Why is this such a disproportionate figure? Is it because men are such ogres that women are leaving marriage in droves?

An article on a marriage support website states that women primarily file for divorce because they feel “neglected.” I believe this roughly translates as: “He’s not paying enough attention to meee. He’s not making meee feel spesh-shull.”

Although this article notes that perhaps, just perhaps, many women’s expectations for marriage and intimate relationships are unreasonable, it then goes on to instruct men on how to make their wives happy, by meeting their wives’ needs for attention and including their wives in every facet of their lives and every hobby they pursue.

Nowhere in the article does it address men’s expectations and needs in the marriage and what wives can do to meet their husbands’ needs and how to make their husbands happy, which leads me to wonder, is marriage all about women and what women want and women’s feeling and needs?

What about a man’s needs, feelings and happiness? Isn’t marriage supposed to be an equal partnership?

Author and researcher Deirdre Bair finds that women are generally the initiators of divorce worldwide, not just in the U.S.. Bair states, “All of a sudden, it’s women in record numbers all over the world. It’s an epidemic.” Bair finds the primary reason women give for divorcing is emotional distance. [Women] said, ‘We just didn’t have anything in common; he never showed me any affection, or a compliment or a birthday present.’”

Out of the 70% of divorces that are initiated by women, I wonder how many of these women strong armed, guilted, shamed and used other high pressure tactics to get their now ex-husbands to marry them?

What’s more immature and selfish, not wanting to get married because you have serious doubts about the woman who wants you to marry her or getting divorced because you’re bored or don’t feel you’re receiving enough attention from your spouse?

In my opinion, the primary reason women initiate divorces in 70% of divorces cases is because most women stand to gain far more than they have to lose if they choose to divorce.

“Sorry, sweetie. I’m bored and you don’t meet my insatiable needs for attention and I’m not in love with you, in fact, I don’t know if I ever was in love with you, so it’s over. Except for supporting me with the money you work hard to earn. I still want access to that. And your retirement. What do you mean it’s ironic that I complained about how much time you spent at work while we were married to support our family because I refused to work, but still expect you to support me after the divorce with money from your job that I complained about incessantly? I sacrificed my career for you. True, I never wanted to work, but I would have had a career if you didn’t marry me. Get it?”

Love that circular logic.

This figure would probably be closer to 50% if men were able to leave dissatisfying and/or abusive marriages without the threat of being destroyed by the family court system and losing their assets and children just as most women are able to do when they initiate divorce. Would women be filing for divorce as much if there were consequences? For instance, if custody was automatically 50/50 and spousal support lasted only as long as her state’s unemployment benefits? Probably not.

Even though women initiate approximately 70% of divorces, men are frequently ordered to pay their ex-wives legal costs. So, in addition to potentially losing their assets, their homes and their children, men are also expected to pay for the privilege of being emotionally and financially eviscerated by their ex-wives.

Not only do women initiate 70% of divorces, women are awarded primary custody in 82.6% of custody cases and this figure has remained largely unchanged since the 1994 U.S. Census. While U.S. Census statistics don’t provide information on how these women obtain custody, for example, the father fought for custody, but ran out of funds and/or was victimized by a benighted family court judge, we do know the following statistics about children who do not have an active father in their lives.

Did you know that:

• 43% of U.S. children live without their father (U.S. Bureau of the Census).
• 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Bureau of the Census).
• 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes (U.S. Bureau of the Census).
• 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes (Center for Disease Control).
• 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26).
• 71% of pregnant teenagers lack a father (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services press release, March 26, 1999).
• 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools).
• 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Rainbows for All God’s Children).
• 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988).
• 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Department of Corrections, 1992).

What’s more, 61% of all child abuse is committed by biological mothers (Department of Health and Human Services Report on Nationwide Child Abuse). 

Can’t wrap your mind around that figure? Think about it. Women are awarded primary custody 84% of the time. Stay at home moms far outnumber stay at home dads. Who has the most access to children in order to perpetrate abuse? Their mothers.

Courts typically refuse to lower child support payments when a father’s income drops. The Bradley Amendment, which was passed in 1986, forbids any reduction in child support arrears, even if the father is disabled.

The amendment holds that inability to pay is no excuse and “that once a child-support obligation has been established, it can’t be retroactively reduced or forgiven by a judge.” This is why it is so very important for men to immediately file for child support adjustments as soon as you know your financial circumstances are going to change.

What’s more, the Bradley amendment ensures that even if a man can prove he is the victim of paternity fraud, that he cannot be absolved from paying child support to a child that is not his biological offspring, which brings us to another disturbing statistic.

Approximately 30% of paternity tests submitted come back negative. That’s nearly one-third of challenged paternity cases proving the woman lied.

The New Hampshire Commission on the Status of Men (2006) concluded that, “paternity fraud is a growing concern for men and children everywhere. It can spawn considerable grief for the men who may or may not be emotionally attached to a child they later discover was fathered by another; and possibly unsettling for children who may discover the false nature of their paternity.”

What about brave men who marry a second time? Men can have their new spouses’ income held against them and used to extort more child and spousal support to their ex-wives. For instance, in Massachusetts, judges frequently include a second spouse’s income as part of “total household income” and use that figure to determine whether the payor, usually a man, has enough income to keep paying spousal support.

This is nothing more than a “backhanded way of tapping into a second spouse’s income” to pay for the ex who believes she shouldn’t have to work because she was once married to her ex once upon a time or wants to maintain that magical and totally unrealistic “marital standard of living.”

However, if the ex-wife remarries, her new spouse is under no legal obligation to financially support his stepchildren. The court’s rationale? Hey, they’re not his children and, therefore, not his responsibility. Yet, it is the new wife’s responsibility to give a portion of her salary to her husband’s ex-wife and children. Can someone please explain to the logic of this to me?

I gotta tell you, as a woman, the fact that a potential husband’s ex could come after me for a portion of my salary or that I would have to support another adult and her offspring and fund their health insurance and vacations sours me on marriage.

No freaking way.

These women are adults, most of whom are capable of supporting themselves. If they don’t want to work, let them suffer the consequences. Federal and state governments have a time limit on unemployment benefits, but many ex-husbands are legally forced to pay alimony or ex-wife unemployment benefits forever.

In many states, long after a divorce has been settled, ex-wives can come after their ex-husbands to shake down their retirement plans — even after they received a portion of the man’s retirement during the divorce settlement! In factoring a man’s ability to pay spousal support after retirement, judges can count the income from retirement accounts, including those already divided in half during the original divorce proceedings. This essentially allows some ex-wives to “double dip” into their exes’ retirement savings.

Here’s another statistic: Divorced and separated men are two and a half times more likely to commit suicide than married men. Divorce, however, doesn’t seem to lead more women to commit suicide. Separated and divorced male suicides outnumber their female counterparts by 4 to 1.

The rigged nature of marriage, divorce and custody isn’t only harmful to men, it’s also harmful to children and women. It’s harmful to children for the reasons listed above. And it’s harmful for women who do want to get married.

Marriage rates are on the decline in the U.S. and worldwide as many men are deciding to opt out of marriage due to the extremely unfair nature of divorce and custody “awards” and the extremely entitled attitudes of many women (MGTOW and the Herbivores) and I can’t say as I blame them.

The author implies being unaware of using the masculine arts as a means to opt out of marriage while remaining intimate with women. The men’s rights movement by itself is not a big enough picture, and can even be misleading. Men need more than rights. We need knowledge, practiced skill, and fruitful attentions. But other than having the blindspot that men need game to interact fruitfully with women, the article is a helpful reminder to men about the quicksand pits in the marriage swamps.

Not to say that the time of the family man has passed. Just that dating conditions no longer favor him as strongly. Men who want relationships with young fertile women need to incorporate ancient mating strategies now. In an era where women are freed from economic need and the needs imposed by unplanned pregnancies, men can no longer be merely stable providers. We need game.

The strategies the family-men must rediscover are pre-agrarian. Perhaps pre-hunter/gatherer. As the value of being a good stable provider has been weakened, young attractive women with no urgent need to settle are voting with their pussies for primal displays of dominance and sneaky-fucker social skills.

Some of us will more easily adapt to this new marketplace – in fact some will fit right in – as it is our natural niche. Others must work harder to adapt and find their new workable strategy.

Rollo: A woman’s love is contingent upon our capacity to maintain that love in spite of a woman’s hypergamy

There was a time when the sexual strategy of relying on the norms of the community to help keep your partner mated to you was successful. But nowadays marriage is less effective, and men who want to maintain such bonds must take on more personal responsibility for the effort. Nowadays we must maintain attraction, through charisma, dominance, psychological ploys, economic advantage, and as many other attractiveness triggers as we can manipulate.

Game is not an option.

Morality has it’s basis in evolution, and various genes have been found to correlate with the different moral predispositions. Morality guides the individual to make decisions, and it is often used as a tool of social manipulation. However the genetic distribution of moral predispositions is not universal. It seems that humans have castes of sexual and power strategies. In our minds we don’t see it that way, and are predisposed to not see it that way. We prefer to view our power struggles as struggles about what is “right”. But another way to view our moral stances is as evolutionary algorithms to power. Humans don’t have one monolithic life strategy, because evolutionarily speaking that would be impossible. Wherever there are dominant strategies alternate niche strategies are automatically created.

From http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/index.php

Foundations Theory was created to understand why morality varies so much across cultures yet still shows so many similarities and recurrent themes. In brief, the theory proposes that five innate and universally available psychological systems are the foundations of “intuitive ethics.” Each culture then constructs virtues, narratives, and institutions on top of these foundations, thereby creating the unique moralities we see around the world, and conflicting within nations too. The foundations are:

1) Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.

2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulate the theory in 2010 based on new data, we are likely to include several forms of fairness, and to emphasize proportionality, which is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]

3) Ingroup/loyalty, related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.”

4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundation underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

5) Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).

Much of our present research involves applying the theory to political “cultures” such as those of liberals and conservatives. The current American culture war, we have found, can be seen as arising from the fact that liberals try to create a morality relying almost exclusively on the Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity foundations; conservatives, especially religious conservatives, use all five foundations, including Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity. [Note: We are currently investigating other candidate foundations. The main contender for being a 6th foundation is Liberty constraint, which includes both lifestyle liberty, and also negative liberty -- the freedom to be left alone by government. Liberals score higher on lifestyle liberty; conservatives on negative liberty]

You can find out your own moral foundations profile at www.yourmorals.org The theory was first developed from a simultaneous review of current evolutionary thinking about morality and cross-cultural research on virtues. To read more about the theory, please start with this article: Haidt & Graham (2007), or see this New York Times article by Nicholas Wade. The theory is an extension of Richard Shweder’s theory of the “three ethics” commonly used around the world when people talk about morality. (See this article: Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M., & Park, L. [1997]. The “big three” of morality (autonomy, community, and divinity), and the “big three” explanations of suffering.) The theory was also strongly influenced by Alan Fiske‘s relational models theory.

From the morality of libertarians:

When it comes to morality, libertarians are often typecast as immoral calculating rationalists who also have a somewhat unseemly hedonistic bent. Now new social science research shows that libertarians are quite moral, just not in the same way that conservatives and liberals are.
***
The study found that libertarians show (1) stronger endorsement of individual liberty as their foremost guiding principle and correspondingly weaker endorsement of other moral principles, (2) a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional intellectual style, and (3) lower interdependence and social relatedness.

In his earlier work, Haidt surveyed the attitudes of conservatives and liberals using what he calls the Moral Foundations Questionnaire which measures how much a person relies on each of five different moral foundations: Harm/Care, Fairness/Reciprocity, Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity. Typically, conservatives scored lower than liberals on the Harm and Fairness scales and much higher on Ingroup, Authority, and Purity scales. In this case, libertarians scored low on all five surveyed moral dimensions. “Libertarians share with liberals a distaste for the morality of Ingroup, Authority, and Purity characteristic of social conservatives, particularly those on the religious right,” notes the study. Libertarians scored slightly below conservatives on Harm and slightly above on Fairness. This suggests that libertarians “are therefore likely to be less responsive than liberals to moral appeals from groups who claim to be victimized, oppressed, or treated unfairly.”

The Schwartz Value scale measures the degree to which participants regard 10 values as guiding principles for their lives. Libertarians put higher value on Hedonism, Self-Direction, and Stimulation than either liberals or conservatives and they put less value than either on Benevolence, Conformity, Security, and Tradition. Like liberals, libertarians put less value on Power, but like conservatives they value Universalism less. Universalism is defined as “understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection of the welfare of all people and nature.” All three put high value on Achievement. Taking these results into account, Haidt concludes that “libertarians appear to live in a world where traditional moral concerns (e.g., respect for authority, personal sanctity) are not assigned much importance.”
***
“Libertarians may fear that the moral concerns typically endorsed by liberals or conservatives are claims that can be used to trample upon individual rights—libertarians’ sacred value.
***
“Libertarians are high in Openness to Experience and seem to enjoy effortful and thoughtful cognitive tasks. In combination with low levels of emotional reactivity, the highly rational nature of libertarians may lead them to a logical, rather than emotional, system of morality.”
***
The scale measures the tendency to empathize, defined as “the drive to identify another person’s emotions and thoughts, and to respond to these with an appropriate emotion,” and to systemize, or “the drive to analyze the variables in a system, and to derive the underlying rules that govern the behavior of the system.” Libertarians are the only group that scored higher on systemizing than on empathizing—and they scored a lot higher. The authors go on to suggest that systemizing is “characteristic of the male brain, with very extreme scores indicating autism.” They then add, “We might say that liberals have the most ‘feminine’ cognitive style, and libertarians the most ‘masculine.’”

So I prefer to simply look at strategies of power, and forget about judging them as moral or not. I think the reason we hold moral judgments is just another exercise of power, to get other people to limit negative actions against us, and perform positive actions towards us. Not that this is “wrong”, of course, because, as I’ve said, my way of thinking now looks at strategies of power rather than categories of strategies. Being moralistic is one strategy to power. It seems to me that this strategy is more effective in smaller groups where people know each other. Where you have anonymous actions or actions that can’t be socially punished, morality is less effective in limiting the actions of others.

So women are fickle gold-diggers who seek provisioning and alpha sperm, not necessarily from the same man, and men like to fuck lot of young beautiful females. Which is more moral? The question doesn’t mean much. We’re both just innately biologically programmed to do that, and will use all sorts of strategies to achieve our goals.

It is a female strategy to limit men’s sexuality in order to accomplish their goal of provisioning. So they’ll call us pigs for doing the job that men are biologically built to do. That is the job of females – to thwart the job of men. It is neither right nor wrong, it’s simply a strategy to achieve the ends of controlling male sexuality and resources for the benefit of her children.

I find it easier to predict actions of other people if I can see their agendas, and I find that thinking in terms of what is moral gets in the way of seeing what really motivates people. We have public and private agendas. Only our public face is moral. Even if we believe that our personal actions are moral, the intentions behind them are quite private and hidden behind all sorts of rationalizations. Our private aims tend to ultimately be selfish. Even if we band together as a group to achieve our private aims, it’s still a collectivized selfishness – a greater good for ourselves. And groups are never universal – there is always in-group and out-group rivalry for resources.

We like to first decide what is moral, and then look to see who is acting moral, in order to correct the actions of others. That doesn’t really work in large groups where people don’t need to all share the same outward public face. In modern society people can openly clash in their opinions and beliefs, and openly express their competing personal agendas without getting stoned by a morally righteous mob.

But in modern society it’s still not usually to the benefit of even the strong to openly declare our private agendas. We instead use subterfuge to proclaim one agenda while following another – even when such subterfuge is unconscious. Women who seek provisioning while cheating on their husband will try to shame her husband for having pig like animalistic horny urges. Morality is merely a tool used to influence others to act in accordance with our personal benefit.

Women are not expected to ever act morally – they realize that morality is nothing other than a tool. It is men who tend to believe that morality exists in and of itself as an abstract principle to be guided by.

‘Tis hard overcoming the urge to possess long-term though. What all this amounts to is sexual nomadism. That would be fine if we were real nomads, but we are still sedentary, and tangible possession is the primary urge of the settled; the town built around the grain store is a living monument to tangible property.
I guess this is why the alphas who can afford it recommend a nomadic lifestyle. Roosh has it going.

Sexual nomadism. What a great conceptual handle.

I wonder if it’s a coincidence that I’ve lived a nomadic lifestyle for most all my adult life. I’ve always felt very happy leaving places. I’ve lived for years at a time in a trailer house on wheels parked in large open spaces near the city, when not on the road. And I usually stay only a year or two in a city here in SE Asia.

You’ve got me wondering if nomadism could be a personality trait.

The BBC show on twins was on again last night. Wow, that show hits hard as to how some traits are hard wired. Its freaky the first time you watch it, freaky the second time, and still freaky the third.

Nomadic versus agrarian temperaments. What a concept.