The Prisoner’s Dilemma and Game

The most fragile of ecosystems is the courtship matrix of a given society. In a closed system, a culture will have reached its equilibrium among its competing sexual interests, based on which the expectations of behavior among men, as well as between the sexes, are understood. There are no hard feelings when you know the rules of the game, even if those rules rest on the Prisoner’s Dilemma tension between trust and opportunism.

What follows are my evolving thoughts on various things that come up in the study of Game.

There are two stable Prisoner’s Dilemma sexual scenarios — one in which the Alphas (top 10% of men by whatever metric their society sorts those things) and Betas (middle 80% of men) keep a cease-fire agreement with each other — and one in which they don’t. First, the latter:

R-Selection / Matriarchy — the men are in a war of all against all. In its extreme form, this scenario is a sexual market free-for-all in which the comparatively few Alphas elbow out the majority of the men, or Betas, and monopolize the women. Beta males, in turn, either drop out or they resort to raping women. Rape can be literal, or it can be symbolic: leering, catcalling, assault. In doing so, the disenfranchised Betas seek to knock the higher SMV girls off their pedestals because… what have they got to lose?

All matriarchies have one thing in common: over time the women become ugly, inside and out. They become that way in part as a defense against being bombarded by endless unwanted advances. They become corrupted by their adventures with to the most vulgar expressions of masculinity. But the kicker is, part of them also loves all that attention along with the lowered expectations on their behavior, and they become complacent, having lost the incentive to bring anything to the table besides their gash.

In a matriarchy, men display and women choose. But under patriarchy, women aren’t let off the hook: they have to put in a little work and audition before the men too. Which takes us to:

K-Selection / Patriarchy — the men make a deal with each other. This is a win-win scenario in which Betas concede the first-tier women to the Alphas, who in turn leave the second-tier women untouched for the Betas. Under this arrangement’s ideal form, pure monogamy, the Alphas claim the most beautiful women while the Betas hold up their end of the bargain by not bothering the girls who are — remember that phrase? — out of their league. This scenario maximizes the quality and quantity of women for all but the Omega males and foreign interlopers, both of whom the Betas keep an eye on.

(On that last thought, I wonder — is white-knighting also an evolved Beta tribute to the Alpha, a readiness to protect the higher-value women for her present or future Alpha’s sake in exchange for the higher-ranking men leaving plenty of other women alone for the Beta, a kind of lord-vassal reciprocity?)

So under Patriarchy, girls get to relax a little. The bitch-shields are lowered because the first-tier girls aren’t pestered by presumptuous Betas’ clumsy fumbling and the second-tier girls by Alphas’ nakedly mercenary interest in them. And paradoxically, this collective self-restraint does not create a sexless or repressed environment. Quite to the contrary: Betas are charming without being creepy, while the Alphas lay on the charisma without triggering a lower-tier girl’s anti-slut defenses. And the girls can then let down their guard and actually be pleasant to everyone.

How did this dynamic play out before Western women nosedived into the gutter? I think that up to two decades ago, for example, Western Europeans’ relaxed attitude about nudity, or Eastern European girls’ femininity after the Cold War, may well have been the fruits of the successful cooperation between the Alphas and Betas in their respective Prisoner Dilemmas.

As to Game itself — under all of its carpe diem promise, was it nothing but the Betas’ usurpation of the natural order? No. Game is not the breaking of trust, it is Betas’ adaptation to their newly dispossessed state; namely, the loss of their own pool of second-tier women to obesity and to the Alpha cock carousel. If first-tier women are beauties, then second-tier ones are what used to be known as “pretty girl next door,” or normal young women who made up in personality where they lacked in exquisite sexual appeal. Female liberation and the obesity epidemic destroyed those kinds of girls, and with them, the Beta’s obligation to the old agreement.

But White men and women don’t do r-selection well or for too long, therefore sooner or later the angels and devils of our nature will once again come to a settlement.

Advertisements

35 thoughts on “The Prisoner’s Dilemma and Game

  1. This dovetails with something I noticed about kings mistresses in the west a while ago. By and large even if you were the Sun King himself, the king would have mistresses who were married women, so that, at least publicly, the highest of men would only be able to bogart one woman. Everybody gets one, now Alphas may get the best one, but only one (again at

  2. Pretty decent piece here. I know it is impossible to get this 100% correct, since it is not mathematics, and I know someone out there might say “you missed this,” or “you forgot about that,” but all in all this post is a fine and dandy explanation of the circumstances.

    My favorite part is how you’ve demonstrated that patriarchal, traditional societies are not “sexless.” Usually it takes me an astonishing amount of energy and words to disabuse people of that crap; you’ve done it in a few words, kudos.

    If I’m not mistaken, you are the Polish guy that used to comment on “Gucci Little Piggy” back in the day. Take care good sir.

  3. This is a win-win scenario in which Betas concede the first-tier women to the Alphas, who in turn leave the second-tier women untouched for the Betas.

    Don’t forget droit du seigneur during European feudal days, whereby the Lord of a Manor had sexual rights to the children/wives of his vassals. Some says it’s a myth, but seems plausible.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/droit-du-seigneur

    All matriarchies have one thing in common: over time the women become ugly, inside and out. They become that way in part as a defense against being bombarded by endless unwanted advances.

    I’ve always thought that women are uglier in matriarchal societies (i.e. Africa) because they only have to be just attractive enough to get f**ed in order to procreate. Since they’re the providers within that society they don’t have to compete for the chance to find a male mate with enough resources to allow them to live to the age of procreation.

    And let’s not forget the “controversial” article of Satoshi Kanazawa, he argued that black women are less attractive to due higher average BMI and higher average testosterone than other women:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1388313/LSE-psychologist-Satoshi-Kanazawa-claims-black-women-attractive.html

  4. I wouldn’t let some men off the hook so easily for reverting to second-tier chaff. ‘Female liberation’ is no excuse. Stick with the Bellis perennis, even – especially – when the gardens aren’t flourishing.

  5. Pingback: The Prisoner’s Dilemma and Game | Reaction Times

  6. I think there are quite a few women out there who are third tier. I consider Melania Trump and Gisele Bundchen examples of first tier women. I consider the slightly above average, cute, mentally stable women I see everyday as second tier women. I consider third tier women to be ones who are completely unsuited to be in relationships.

  7. “Gisele is in a tier of her own.”

    I’ve heard you say that before. What drives you to view her as so particularly special?

    I mean, I know these are subjective matters and it’s ultimately silly to put too much thought into one’s “best-looking model” determination —– but that’s why I’m humored by certain high and unyielding fealty to such an elusive figure and ideal.

    I mean, she’s of course high regard in all the standard anthropological measures of beauty: skin tone, hair quality, facial and skeletal symmetry.

    But (and here’s the subjective part) to me she seems to have a broad and unrevealing facial expression, almost dare-say masculine in its beam and declarative quality. Overall, I get a sense of ‘covering all the bases’ but no real committment or passion or even much detailed definition beyond that.

    Which brings up the point in basing aesthetic absolute off two-dimensional images via pictures or television: to me, it’s absurd and unimaginable to have a deeply romanticized view of a woman without some personal interactive history with said figure; with some ups-and-down under our belt, from which one can build some romantic-melancholy created and then overcome —- the eneloping sadness in romance, followed by its deliciously redemptive resolve, all embellished by the fetishistic appeal of the partner’s physical look.

    But all that is flatlined and void when it’s pictures of someone you don’t even know, no?

  8. In a matriarchy, men display and women choose. But under patriarchy, women aren’t let off the hook: they have to put in a little work and audition before the men too. –PA

    In modern MATRIARCHY, there are no “men” or “woman.” This is WHY it is “matriarchy.” But this lack of real (white) men and real (white) woman… Or, shall “we” say a coherent conception thereof… IS THE RESULT OF a desire for HOMOSEXUALITY and NOT the result of the “mother,” ie., The Matriarch, unless one be found guilty of further deconstruction of reality?

    The only legitimate discussion concerning the REAL EFFECT of matriarchy is around the Jewish TRADITION OF A RACE DESCENDED through their mothers.

    Judaism is a true Matriarchal religion.

  9. In modern MATRIARCHY, there are no “men” or “woman.” This is WHY it is “matriarchy.”

    I think that’s also why no matter how big and masculine the brother gets, he’s always on the verge of being on the downlow and has an effeminate soul singer/ghetto dandy just waiting to burst forth from inside.

  10. So again PA… You display an ability to transcend what amounts to a near universal paradigm with a concise articulation of said paradigm…

    Buttjew…

    REFUSE to indicate this paradigm from whence you write and have transcended to?

    I say, “white Supremacy” is the parading you have ascended to so as to make these general assertions… Yet, you do not really specify and so I am to conclude to remain in a state of “radical autonomy.”

    In short, “we” are left to believe that you are just one more individual, ON THE GROUND, looking from the inside out and seeing “things” not entirely coherent such as a “matriarchy” with competing “men” and “women.”

  11. Camlost…

    Peep Dayton’s mayor. Niggers are on the DL, period. Such is an aspect of “any means necessary.” So every meme is customary.

  12. Edit:

    I say, “white Supremacy” is the [paradigm] you have ascended to so as to make these general assertions…

  13. IF you want to have a discussion about Race THEN it must be with the highest representives of the Jewish Matriarchy concerning the issue of genuine white Supremacy.

  14. Corvo: thanks!

    Thordaddy: as best as I can tell from what follows “Buttjew,” you would like me to positively declare something that you think I am aware of but choosing to be indirect about. For my part, I am 100% direct in everything I write here.

  15. PA…

    Your POST…

    “It” is EVIDENCE of one INHABITING a transcending paradigm TO THE ONE articulated in the post.

    What do YOU CALL this transcending paradigm?

    I say “it” tends towards a “white Supremacy” paradigm, but you are not adamant nor assertive in your own assessment?

    Which is to say you are floating… The post doesn’t really suggest you striving towards Supremacy, but it does hint at a desire to rise above the degeneracy… So you float in a very high IQ-manufactured “radical autonomy” which will not justify white Supremacy and yet rejects white degeneracy.

    THIS ^^^ IS NOT SPIRITUALLY OR INTELLECTUALLY STABLE…

    And will inevitably lead to physical breakdown… Self-annihilation.

    So you’re not a floater BECAUSE you reject self-annihilation.

    That leaves you where all healthy-minded white men are left at when they reach this point…

    First Law of white Supremacy…

    White man strives towards Supremacy or he is in descent.

    One cannot float.

  16. It is a cogent point. I see eye to eye with you on the stability/instability of certain things in principle. Still, I think you are making incorrect conclusions. Specifically, this: “but you are not adamant nor assertive in your own assessment.”

    I disagree. But how would an adamant or assertive affirmation look like to you?

  17. From an American white Supremacist to an ethnic Roman Catholic…

    I would say re-racialize your religion and drop the ethnic angst over white Supremacy.

  18. — re-racialize your religion

    I am doing what I can. Liberals in my country would be horrified to hear this, but for us Polish-Catholicism has always been another way of saying “nation.” Some references: see Czeslaw Milosz for a denunciation of that attitude. In his defense, he always identified most with the Lithuanian / provincial Polish identity (which has was eradicated in 1945 but has been the crucible of Polish high culture since the 15th century), wary of Warsaw and Poland-proper sort of in the manner in which a Scot hates London. Another point of view comes from the film director Kieslowski, whose Catholic vision embraced the promise of Western Europe’s secular humanism. Finally, English historian Norman Davies wrote at length and sympathetically about the Polish nationalists’ messianic spirit.

    — and drop the ethnic angst over white Supremacy

    I would like to know what that means, but I don’t.

  19. “Which is to say you are floating… The post doesn’t really suggest you striving towards Supremacy, but it does hint at a desire to rise above the degeneracy… So you float in a very high IQ-manufactured “radical autonomy” which will not justify white Supremacy and yet rejects white degeneracy.”

    Is this what you mean by the rejection of wS?

  20. @PA I think what thor is trying to get at is related to the differences in demographics. I’m not sure about ‘today’ specifically, but from what I’ve seen Poland doesn’t generally have (any?)numbers of non-whites of 2nd or 3rd (or later) generation. This results in a differing perspective and what he’s (I think) trying to get at.

    I’m reminded of growing up; there were these (essentially meaningless) jokes about European racial groups: Wops, Micks, Pollacks, Bohunks… various other sorts. Thing is, that while there were quite a few jokes, we all understood that no matter how dumb a Pollack (for example) might be, he was still twice as useful as any dindu (joke or not).

    From an American perspective, it’s a sort of reverse colonialism. The only places where “white supremacy” was ever noticed (or even merited a mention) were places that had colonial (non-white) populations. So (with the exceptions of England and France mostly), before 1945 few living Europeans had even seen a Google before. How do you compare ‘superiority’ with something you’ve never seen? The answer is: you talk about whether Germans are better than Frenchmen or Englishmen or Poles… there’s no question about ‘white supremacy’ since all supremacy WAS white.

  21. PA…

    In MRKA, “white supremacy” is Nazism and Nazism is “racism” and “racism” is the belief that the “white race” should lord over blacks. “National socialism” has no broadly coherent meaning outside the few who would just say “liberalism.”

    In Europe, Nazism is Nazism… National socialism is ethnic socialism and neither constitute “white supremacy.” And to the extent the Europeans give some conceptual credence to “white supremacy,” it is in obedience to the MRKN “liberal’s” redundantly tired caricature of a “Neo-Nazi.”

    So in MRKA, we have “extreme right” “national socialists” who are falsely labeled “white (s)upremacists,” yet never correct their misidentification… And in Europe, there are a variety of ethnic socialists SIMPLY UNABLE TO CONCEIVE of genuine white Supremacy OUTSIDE the MRKN liberated frame…

    So its high jinks on all sides when one winds out with the high IQ ethnic European Catholic and high IQ American Christian DENYING a worship of objective Supremacy COALESCING within a WHITE RACE…

    Ergo, the European Catholic and the American Christian ARE white Supremacists.

    And socialism is self-annihilation.

    It’s diabolical to attempt to forge these “things” together…

  22. That red / blue breakdown of how the demographic vote breaks down is stark as hell. It is good to see that white men are not as clueless as the general results might lead one to believe.

    Polling methodology is manipulatable as hell. That is a big topic this time around especially, and it has been taken to task. The polls are biased by their sample, which is supposed to be based on who will vote — but Who will vote? is the question.

    And the polls used by the trickledown mediawhores do not even try and sample the likely turnout, they simply tilt full-on democrat and women and college-educated, and then present those results as if they are predictive.

  23. — I don’t get your point in tihs instance. How is that question and its resolve even being raised here?

    I don’t think it’s come up here but Whiskey’s screeds about White women supposedly living and breathing our destruction are legendary in the larger sphere. The map you linked showed that White women lean only slightly more liberal than White men.

  24. The Don Giovanni-Masetto-Zerlina subplot in Mozart’s opera may be seen as a working out of what happens when an Alpha in a traditional society breaks the unspoken contract between Alphas and Betas that PA describes.

  25. “Game is not the breaking of trust, it is Betas’ adaptation to their newly dispossessed state; namely, the loss of their own pool of second-tier women to obesity and to the Alpha cock carousel.”
    CH often describes game as “learned charisma,” and to that extent it is universal. But I think a lot of resistance to game comes from not realizing how “the market” has changed so much for the worse, and that Betas need a different strategy from what worked a decade and more ago — as CH commonly notes and as described by PA here.

  26. The “resistance” to “Game” is “its” lack of Final Victory and thus a realization of a devious process of redundancy at hand…

    Which is then the REAL GAME.

  27. “And let’s not forget the “controversial” article of Satoshi Kanazawa, he argued that black women are less attractive to due higher average BMI and higher average testosterone than other women:”

    Still, Kanazawa strangely forgot to add that for the same reason Mongoloid men, from Mongolia to China to the Koreas and Japan, are less attractive than their women and other men (what Chinese woman won’t swap her Chinaman with a White? By the same reason, racism eliminated, a part of White women will swap their White men with a Black).

  28. “— and drop the ethnic angst over white Supremacy

    I would like to know what that means, but I don’t.”

    Really, don’t you?
    Check his profile.
    You’ll see he is black, and he does what he can to assuage the kind of complexes blacks suffer from when they are in a non-all-black environment.

    What’ll be bigger in the end, those muscles or the complexes?
    Let’s wish it be the muscles. When that’s not the case, you have street riots.

  29. Quod

    I’m a solid Nordic 7… Perhaps a Nordic 8… Descended from the Normans with a noble surname hidden by adoption.

    I want to beat the nigger dead with white Supremacy. Do you?

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