Random Xpat Rantings

Contemplative dominance for the modern man

Heartiste’s promotion of narcissism and sociopathy is toxic to life satisfaction

Posted by xsplat on June 6, 2013

XXL Wrote: RE: How Does Heartiste Game Factor Into Pickup?

As for your question, to me it’s possible to look at it in two ways…

1. non neediness – not needing girls reactions to game them. in practice it means that flirting/leading/escalating itself makes you happy. whatever happens you maintain your good mood. when a girl hits you with some mega bomb shittest you’re not affected cause it just adds more to the vibe. it’s like her reaction is a ball [of emotion] coming at you that you can return to her ie you laugh it off or mock her or change the topic or exaggerate to amp it even more etc. it’s high status as fuck when you’re that centered. and a girl feels stripped off her whole girl power since you’re like a host of your own party just welcoming sharing spreading. that’s how game looks like when [for whatever reason] you’re already happy on your own and you just celebrate. you don’t need nothing from nobody just having a good time and that’s when you’re so attractive then.

2. indifference – think of it like the approach is like nobody is approaching nobody. two strangers meet. your nobody to her and she’s nobody to you. so indifference is given since there is no real reason to care too much about that random girl. now it’s fine to appreciate/dismiss something about her you see/hear but she’s still nobody to you. so the vibe is you’re interested yet skeptic. even though you’re the one making effort to meet each other your frame immediately force her to prove herself to you. you question her as much as you praise her. in short, curiosity.

those are principles, not abc methods. which means you can be high energy/low energy or aloof/engaging or friendly/intense. whatever fits you best. the common denominator those two is BEING CAREFREE. you’re carefree cause you don’t need a girl. you’re carefree cause you’re indifferent toward random girl.

at least that’s how i understand it

I like your broad understanding of internal satisfaction as a principle of seduction, however that is not how heartiste conceptualizes or teaches his ideas.

He is very specific and adament about confidence itself being the root of all attraction, that all attributes boil down to and can be replaced by confidence, and that the dictionary definition of being aloof is a core principle of attraction. The dangers in his engaging prose are that he downplays building up anything other than narcissistic charisma and he has little place in his scheme of things for non-charismatic hypergamous value, plus he discounts non-narcissistic masculine development, plus he subtly encourages anhedonia.

He shows no grasp of using bonding emotions to enslave a girl, and shows no signs of having such emotions to be able to use.

Although he is a founding father with vast insights, in many ways his water of life is toxic.


Not friendly or forthcoming; cool and distant.
Conspicuously uninvolved and uninterested, typically through distaste.

remote – distant

Heartiste imagines that sociopathic anhedonia, or emotional color blindness, is not a deficit of ability but a freedom from disability.

In that he is deliberately ignorant and leading people astray. It is not subtle the damage he is causing.

It may be true that some people have some flavors of dark triad combinations that are relatively fixed, and for whom movement away into other ways of viewing life are unlikely.

However I think most of us are more fluid and have personalities that are more trainable.

Roissy’s entire world is explained within a dard triad framework. This framework is not as happy and content as other frameworks. Therefore if maximizing life satisfaction is peoples general aim, then most people will be harmed in their general life aim by following into and being captivated by the gravity of Roissy’s frame.

26 Responses to “Heartiste’s promotion of narcissism and sociopathy is toxic to life satisfaction”

  1. […] xsplat.wordpress.com […]

  2. I’ve said for a year that the Roosh/Roissy lifestyle will poison a man’s soul.

  3. Interesting. Everything in moderation, indeed. I recall some early Roissy posts where he almost gets emotional–wistful, about girls he knew and loved– and later ones are the full-on Heartiste that you’re discussing. I wonder if he went through the player burnout rollercoaster, which we’d be seeing on full-bore now. It probably changes a man.

  4. ggar said

    Hey, offtopic: assume you don’t need to work hard to get your income. How would you justify then to your girl that she has to do the house chores? Also, how do you react when she asks that you hire help?

    • xsplat said

      Sometimes I won’t work much for a few weeks. But the income that still comes in is the product of decades of business knowledge and asset growth. The girl is only 24. No amount of work she could do could equal the background effort I’ve put in to achieve our lifestyle. A lifestyle she would never achieve in a lifetime of her labor.

      She has an unlimited budget for hiring labor, but she must manage them. She has several regular helpers, from maintenance to laundry to housecleaning and cooking to bill paying and gopher work.

      The job description of a rich man’s slave/lover is in the favor of the woman, in the immediate term. If the man leaves her with a long term income, it is also in the womans favor in the long term.

  5. yousowould said

    Agreed entirely. I’ve mentioned in a few of my posts that I don’t subscribe to motivation behind his methodologies. Unfortunately, he has a wide following, the whole “dark triad” bad-boy type game appealing primarily to younger audiences, on whom it has most chance to cause damage.

    Actually loving women is the key to maintaining a healthy, positive outlook on the whole thing.

    • xsplat said

      Great positive post. Agree.

    • J.M. said

      Some of Roissy arguments are flawed but he was instrumental in recovering the wisdom from the ancients, wisdom that many posters here like Yousowould, Wallace and other reject implicitly. “Actually loving women is the key to maintaining a healthy, positive outlook on the whole thing.” Hahaha. Men of yore knew almost instinctively that “Love” is an illusion, domination is what gives life to the relationships between men and women, what gets their vaginas wet and ready, since times past men in love were seen as losers and there was a reason for it: THEY WERE DOMINATED BY WOMEN.

      Ditto there were less opportunities for them to cheat and just go away but a relationship in which a woman doesn´t respect and admire her man is a flawed relationship. From the 16 commandments of poon, the most important one is that NO WOMAN (unless she is your mother or daughter) can be central to you, only your mission merits such a pedestal. I say this in spite of the fact that I am currently more in favor of xsplat’s way of approach than the aloof, but truth must be accepted uncompromisingly.

      • yousowould said

        You seem to be labouring under the impression that actually loving women in general as a gender (instead of carrying around a heart of bitter misogyny) and being dominant are mutually exclusive. They are not. No-one said anything about supplication.

        “but truth must be accepted uncompromisingly” – you’re sounding a bit zealously weird here mate. It is unhealthy to wholly subscribe to the teachings of any one single person to the extent you seem to be proposing. Like anything else, it’s important to study as much as possible, and find your own balance therein.

    • FamilyMan said

      Nothing stops you from loving a woman you find lovable, even if you’ve been “following” Heartiste or whomever.

      But some guys no longer find them so lovable. If you ask them it seems it’s because they think they have identified some deeply unlovable things about women. If it’s truth, it’s truth, and I want to know all the truth I can. Don’t tell me it’s “deeply dangerous” for me to learn something.

      It may be deeply dangerous for existing social arrangements, but that’s OK with me!

  6. UCB said

    I always thought it was strange how so many of the Roissy-type PUAs have adopted an emotional frame that necessarily brings out the worst in the women they meet, then later turn around and complain how women are all lying, cheating whores. Sure, most women will probably cheat given the right circumstance… but then how responsibility do we (men) bear for putting them in those situations in the first place?

    After reading a few posts on your blog some time back, I consciously adopted a more positive and loving frame in my relationships. And while I did lose a couple of girls I really liked, I realized soon afterward that they were the source of ~90% of my relationship conflict. These days I’m able to maintain 99% of the relationship happiness I had before on roughly 10% of the effort. That’s a trade I’ll take any day of the week. Roissy/Dark Triad game is great for attracting exactly the type of women that most of us would rather not have in the first place.

    • WhatsNews said

      [Roissy-type PUAs have adopted an emotional frame that necessarily brings out the worst in the women they meet, then later turn around and complain how women are all lying, cheating whores.]

      This is the usual feminist-style attitude that what’s wrong with women is always men’s fault.

      Also, it is completely contrary to Heartiste/Roissy’s often repeated points, that if one turns on women they are far more “loving” and faithful, and that he teaches men to earn what passes for “love” (which is just lust) from women.

      His point is that women are on their best behaviour only when they realize that they need a man (because he turns her on) more than he needs her (because he has other options).

      One of his main points is the sad realization that “Roissy Maxim #20: The gina tingle is the principal moral code to which women subscribe”. If you tingle her gina a woman will want to please you and will be partially loyal and even tone down her challenges, and if you do not, well, you are a loser creep.

      I find very little that is criticizable in that. As Heartiste/Roissy has said many times, he wishes that women were different, but if you agree with him that they are as he sees them, without rose tinted glasses, the choices are: be a beta doormat, be an MGTOW monk, or be a detached man who gets sex.

    • Matthew Chiglinsky said

      I’ve had this same general theory for a while. The reason misogynistic men think all women are whores is because they treat all women like whores. They create their own demons. The evil that they see in women is the evil in their own cold hearts reflected back at them.

      Wait. There’s a cliche for this: You reap what you sow.

  7. Renfrew said

    Roissy’s a genius and his writing is juicy, compelling, sly and knowing…much fun to read, when you’re in a certain mood, because his prose style reaches extraordinary heights of cleverness for a blogger, and because he obviously has his finger on some key (yet politically incorrect) dynamics between the male and female of the species, and he delights in batting his insights around with the un-empathic deftness of a cat toying with a dying mouse. Sometimes he’s a cartoon of himself, alas, but it’s usually easy to tell when, and easy to dismiss those misjudged turns.

    A much bigger problem is the…what’s a good term for it?…unloving craftiness…than runs throughout his writing, which is baked into it quite heavily, in fact. It comes out in many ways, for example when he says things like “as any super-alphas would already know…” or “only a hopeless beta would ever…”. This is a logical fallacy related to question begging — where that which actually needs proof is merely assumed. A degree of this is forgivable in polemics (because you can’t stop to prove everything), but Roissy’s stuff is rife with these constructions, and the un-careful reader can easily be to made to worry — even at a quite unconscious level — “OMG, am I beta? Am I not super-alpha?” rather than to learn to think, act, feel, and evaluate for himself.

    This danger is compounded when such a seductive writer projects an overwhelmingly confident and successful image of himself, as Roissy does. It makes buying into the party line so very appealing, so much the path of least resistance, so much an assurance of gold at the end of the rainbow: “if you think like this, you can have this.” There’s an insidious push to lead Roissy’s life instead of your own, even if in a paint by numbers way, and there’s more than a dash of evil in that.

    Oddly, I find Roissy reminds me a lot of Ayn Rand. She had altruism (boo!) and egoism (yay!) to lord over her readers, whereas he has beta and alpha.

    To get anything useful out writers like this — and the irony is they usually have a lot that is useful, because they’re brilliant — you need to reject the “package deal” of the definitions and premises they embed deeply in every paragraph. It’s not easy to do, because it’s not as simple as saying “you’ve got some facts wrong there,” and most readers don’t do it, and maybe don’t even know how to do it.

    • xsplat said

      You blew me away with that comment. I’d like to meet you in person. If that strikes your curiosity please contact me xsplat22 (at) yahoo.com

    • V Hayes said

      your insight is exemplary. maybe you should be writing the blogs, man. i’m serious.

      • Renfrew said

        Well, that feels good to hear, and it means something to me to hear it. Thanks, Hayes. At this point in my life (late 30s) my main wisdom “gifts” are an ability to form valid hypotheses and a keen and constant sense of what I don’t know (including whatever I suspect I don’t know I don’t know…the un- or dimly known unknowns). But this doesn’t leave me feeling like I have a lot to get off my chest — a feeling I imagine (here comes the hypothesising!) a successful blogger needs as the motive power for regular posting. But now and then a subject comes up I think I really know something about and have a useful perspective on, and it’s great sometimes to have a place to type those thoughts other than my journal. For now, this forum is perfect. But your encouragement is encouraging.

    • FamilyMan said

      You say two things that really don’t relate.

      1. A reader might be offended or have his ego crushed by Roissy, so Roissy shouldn’t write that way. (I disagree, at any rate I can take things with a dash of salt when I choose.)

      2. (presented as a part of the same point, which it’s not) Roissy presents himself as successful so he will be very convincing and people will try to follow his prescription. That’s supposedly bad because you would then be living his life rather than your own. (Which is nonsense, unless we are banging the same women! I don’t doubt that Roissy is quite successful with women, and I want to learn from such a guy. Yes, really absorb his knowledge — and use it whenever I want. That does not make me him. I am still making the choices.)

    • Tenet said

      Renfrew, that is excellent. I am responding to this even though it’s an old post. Heartiste has a lot to teach, about game and politics and evolutionary psychology, and he posts a lot of facts – backed up by studies and logic. Most people don’t do this. But you should think more about relationships than Heartiste does.

      Consider that Heartiste is close to fifty and single. If you don’t want to be single at that age, you have to think of more than “it’s my way or the highway”. Without turning … beta.

      The never-ending manosphere split: the ones who talk only about pickup and denounce intimacy, and the ones who preach marriage ASAP and declare casual dating to be of the devil. (And then, the ones who can’t get close to women at all and say MGTOW a lot.) BOTH short-term dating and long-term relationships should be accepted.

  8. avd said

    Whether or not one agreed with all his precepts, Roissy WAS keystone in his time. However, after handing over his hard-constructed edifice to unequipped juveniles, the “Roissy” message quickly deteriorated into lowest common denominator oblivion. Believe me, I mourned that passing. The Chateau is now a low rent district for, well, the lowest common denominator. Further, and BAFFLING to me, is that that was clearly the proprietor’s intention; I understand not why, though I have my suspicions.Still, I celebrate Roissy for his gains over the years, but now move on to greener pastures, like Xsplat. May the males at Roissy find what they seek, incurring minimal misdirected damage to themselves. I’ve not seen this elsewhere, though it need be said: for whatever reason, the new Roissy proprietorship effectively serves as a wedge between intermediate/advanced men, and noobs. I don’t quite see how this serves the larger movement, but I also accept that I don’t have all the answers. Best wishes to all involved.

    • xsplat said

      I’m agnostic as to why the quality of the writing changed. One thought I used to entertain was that Roissy used an editor, and that his editor wrote in full some of the more political articles. Perhaps the editor contributes a greater proportion overall nowadays. Just a guess.

      for whatever reason, the new Roissy proprietorship effectively serves as a wedge between intermediate/advanced men, and noobs.”

      Ya, I’ve been enjoying seeing the ideas that evolve from the guys at the RVforum. More holistic. And the great thing about the downfall of CH is the need for a wider awareness of the greater manosphere. So now we have aggregators such as http://www.thesecondestate.com/ and http://http://vivalamanosphere.com/ and http://delusiondamage.com/ and http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/ to show us more varied views.

    • Tenet said

      Nonsense. Heartiste is the same person as always, there is no proof whatsoever that he would have handed over the blog to someone else.

      Juveniles? He often makes references that no juvenile could ever come up with. Cultural and historical references that prove that he is a man who has lived a long time and who has spent a lot of that time reading up on the world.

  9. WhatsNews said

    I find this discussion very strange, Heartiste/Roissy has written many time that he really regrets that women get turned on only by “the whole “dark triad” bad-boy type game” and that if women were turned on by being a simpering adorer he would recommend that.

    From his point of view this is completely wrong: “Heartiste’s promotion of narcissism and sociopathy”, because his point of view is that *women* promote narcissism and sociopathy, and he has said many times that he thinks it may bring down first-world civilization with time.

    • xsplat said

      Do you think that it is possible to be both dominant and emotionally open with women? Do you think that there are men whose seduction styles and LTR styles with women are extremely effective but are not skewed towards dark triad traits?

      I believe you are confusing dark triad traits with dominance, and that your views are polarized.

      It is not a question of being a mewling simp versus being a bad boy. Those are not the only options.

  10. […] A Dark triad man is not a complete man. Yes, if you are blind you’ll have enhanced hearing. Is that any reason to blind yourself? Yes, if you lean towards sociopathy you’ll free up some restrictions to effective manipulation. Is that any reason to become anhedonic? […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 158 other followers

%d bloggers like this: