In some situations confidence is as good as or better than cash. Or even looks.

I’m a bit of a stickler for logical systems of thought. I don’t know why, but it just troubles me when the facts are not arranged into a pleasing cohesive whole. And small details stick out to me as more important than to some. For instance the detail that some women screen for money, or the logic that all else being exactly equal, adding better looks or more money would give access to a larger pool of women.

Some guys prefer to think a bit more pragmatically. If they don’t at the time have much money, no use even realizing if having more would help – just act as if, or ideally actually believe, that more money would not even make the person more attractive. Again – all else being exactly equal.

I’ve heard it said that some people lack this ability to avoid difficult knowledge with convenient beliefs. When told that they will feel comfort if they would only just believe in God and a heavenly afterlife, they say they would like to, have tried to, but since the facts don’t add up, they are unable to. Some of us are really sticky and picky about the mental maps we use – we value their integrity above pretty much all else – even relationships. This puts me at a disadvantage for making friends through church, but any disadvantages are paid back in the long run by having an updated and cohesive mental map available when formulating strategy.

So this leads me to consider it important – actually important – to realize the distinction that although confidence can at times be as or more effective in seduction than money or looks or other non-confidence based attraction triggers, it is not just a different version of the same thing. The logic that I consider wrong and am fighting against goes like this; muscles or money lead to confidence, and it is the confidence that women find attractive, not the muscles themselves or the money itself.

But I see that viewpoint as harmful. Not just because it doesn’t nicely arrange all the facts into a perfectly arranged and framed puzzle landscape, but because adopting that view would lead men to neglect going to the gym or working on their entrepreneurial skills in favor of upping their confidence.

The fact that of two men of equal confidence the one with money has access to a greater pool of women illustrates that money is not a sub-category of confidence. They are both different categories of attraction. Promoting a category error about attraction triggers is harmful to men.

But this is a very difficult point to argue, because some people literally do not want to hear it. They hear me instead say something completely different, such as that I’m promoting looks and money over game. My point is that not all attraction reduces down to confidence, and that attractive traits are additive. If money could actually be replaced by confidence, then it would not be true that x amount of confidence would be more attractive with the addition of money. But since it is, we can see that attractive traits are additive, and that not all attractive traits reduce down to confidence.

In the short term, game is the easiest thing to change. But mens lives are all about the long view. Our sexual attraction is cultivated over decades. It’s important for young men to plan not just their weekend, but the direction of their lives.

Now, I’m not anti poverty, but a man should know the effect of it. I’ve lived in extreme poverty for decades and wouldn’t recommend it unless you are doing it for a reason. My reason was I stubbornly insisted on believing in my entrepreneurial dreams. I don’t regret that gamble. For me, it worked.

But I can imagine people neglecting to maximize their attraction based on a game emphasis. It could be decades before they realize the error.

“Tired of lying in the sunshine staying home to watch the rain.
You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today.
And then one day you find ten years have got behind you.
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun. “