A reader with an active mind sends along his proposition, based on the principles of economic game theory, that men should never pursue relationships, even if they ultimately want a relationship or benefit from a relationship.
Conclusion: a man should only pursue commitment-free sex, even if he benefits from a relationship. This is especially true if he approaches or chases.
The famous Pascal Wager suggests everyone should believe in God since atheism costs the same as faith, but only believers share in upside. Technically, this sort of approach is known as game theory, which is ironic since we?re talking about game. In economics and politics, game theory is used to make decisions with uncertain information.
In a simple world, a guy has a partner, or he doesn?t and he?s looking for commitment or he?s not. Therefore, he?s faced with decision A, B, C, or D. These decisions roughly correspond to what the seduction community calls frames.
Based on conventional wisdom, a woman should prefer a guy with decision A, over a guy with decision B, over a guy with decision C, over a guy with a decision D. Guy A is a single guy looking to be a family man, what more can women want? Guy B, C, D all seem like players, but at least guy B will give her the comfort of a relationship, or said differently, going from one alpha to another. There?s no apparent upside to guy D.
That said, if each guy adopts the above frame, what does it say about each man?s dating outlook?
- guy A: he?s offering commitment, which means he expects less attractive choices in the future (girl conclusion: he should aim lower than me)
- guy B: he is incapable of commitment
- guy C: he expects to at least date girls like me, yet it is uncertain if he can date anyone better than me
- guy D: he?s been preselected, and it is certain his current girl is better than me (girl conclusion: I?m not in his league)
Guy B is an interesting case, but I don?t rate him highly since guy B communicates to the woman he?s incapable of commitment, which I think reduces his long-term upside. Women want to extract commitment from a worthy man, but she knows she can?t get it from guy B. That said, he?s better than desperate guy A.
I don?t think there is anything inherently wrong with chasing or approaching if the guy only has sex on his mind. It seems chasing becomes counter-productive when a relationship is the goal. It?s not clear what this framework says about direct vs indirect game, but it would seem guy D would naturally communicates via indirect game whereas guy C would have the option of direct or indirect game. I would also think guy D is limited to don?t chase game.
- guy C: indirect or direct game; chase or don?t chase game
- guy D: indirect only; don?t chase game only
If guy D is the highest value guy, the only way you?ll look like him is if you use a combination of indirect-don?t chase game. That said, guy C will have a higher notch count. Guy D will be able to do more with his girls than guy C will, physically and emotionally.
You can also simulate a ?seek no commitment? outlook by treating the woman poorly.
An excellent analysis which backs up not only the personal observations and experiences of your humble Chateau hosts, but also the science which is slowly unraveling the mystery of why the most marketable chicks dig aloof jerks.
You could call this economic game theory analysis Relationship Coyness Game. The female analogue of male relationship coyness game is sexual coyness game. A man should be as insufferably, exquisitely coy about his relationship intentions as the typical woman is insufferably, exquisitely coy about her sexual intentions. A man who follows this protocol brings balance to the force; a man who jettisons his duty to answer female sexual coyness with equal relationship coyness is a feeble manboob who has made love more often to couch creases than to women.
If this game theoretic analysis has merit, then the indirect approach with muted intentions coupled with a studied aloofness to furthering the progress of any resulting relationship is the ideal strategy for most men who wish to make themselves as desirable as possible to the maximum number of high value (read: hot) women, given the constraints placed on them by their objective status or genetic endowment and the availability of any serious male competition.
And, in support of the game theory take on seduction, the women I have dated who have been the most exasperatingly, head over heels, obsessed with me have been those women I dragged my feet with the most. In contrast, the women I went out of my way to assure them of my relationship intentions were those women who perplexingly (to me, at the time) assumed the role of the foot-dragging man.
If you, as a man of stout penis, DO NOT seek a relationship, you gain nothing, and possibly hurt your chances, if you tell women that you are interested in a relationship, or if you behave as if your goal is a committed relationship. You are better off aligning your behavior with your true intentions.
If you, as a man of stout heart, DO seek a relationship, you STILL gain nothing, and possibly hurt your chances, if you act with the intention of committing long-term to the women you wish to bed. You are better off behaving exactly as the no-commitment-man above, and basically concealing your relationship intentions. This strategy will invoke a paradox of the female mind, wherein any relationship is more likely to develop under auspices of uncertainty and male coyness that are so thrilling to women?s senses and so fulfilling to women?s hypergamous desires for high(er) value mates.
Best case scenario for men who can?t help but fawn over women with promises of commitment and marriage is that their supplication will not push the girl away. But neither will it draw her much closer, at least not during the critical beginning stages of the dating trajectory. The most likely scenario is that she will come to devalue the man who readily promises the one treasure he has to offer at his disposal: male commitment. And once he is devalued in her mind, it?s a few short hamster rationalizations to suffering the indignity of getting his niceguy ass dumped for being ?too nice?.
So far, so good. But? I think where this game theoretic analysis breaks down is at the extremes. For instance, a man who is much higher value than the woman he wishes to meet, or the woman he is already fucking, can afford to liberally promise vows of commitment. His revealed commitment intentions will allay a lower value woman?s feelings of inadequacy. Furthermore, a woman in such an arrangement feels no exigency to ?chase? an aloof man as practical proof of his alpha male worth, because the higher status of her partner is so obvious to her. Of course, this just begs the question of why a high value man would bother settling for dating much lower value women. I guess some guys don?t mind lower quality sex if it means zero headaches and drama.
I wonder what mood-affiliated economist Cheap Chalupas thinks of all this? And then I wonder why I love taunting that guy so much.
joseph kony joseph kony ipad 3 release date apple store down apple live blog ohio primary cell phone jammer
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.