Sham-rocks and Other Fables

Well I stopped posting for a bit, and found that I liked it. Alas! All good things must come to an end and so it’s back to the mind-stone. My plan was to continue my series on how things like TV shows, swimwear, and pop songs affect women, why they affect women, and how women actually prefer to be affected by them; that licentiousness is not something merely foisted upon them, but actually desired by them. (It’s an important bit of knowledge for a man who desires to lovingly wash a woman with the water of the word; as his own.)

Yet I was happily diverted from the specifics by a post Zippy made about the mathematical illiteracy often present in discussions about Game; i.e., how to “get” women. While Zippy’s intent is to explain a general truth, I found his statement to be precisely true, but actually inaccurate. It’s a short post, so with apologies to Zippy I’m going to copy the whole thing here.[1]

Suppose a group of men hunts four-leaf clovers.  With time and persistence they learn intuitively where to go, how to scan for them, etc.  It gets to the point where these men are each collecting many four-leaf clovers in a given year.

Because of their success in collecting four leaf clovers these men go around pronouncing that most clovers have four leaves.  For some reason lots of other men – men who, rather ironically, especially pride themselves on dispassionate logic and rational thinking – believe them.

I’ve made the same charge myself…with one important difference.

Zippy’s choice of the four-leafed clover as sluts in his metaphor is backwards both numerically and aesthetically. C’mon: Four-leafed clovers are lucky! They are a good and difficult thing to find. The Author of Proverbs says

Who can find a virtuous woman?
for her price is far above rubies.

WHO can find! As in it takes skill, perseverance, and diligence. Sounds like a four-leafed clover to me. The alternative meaning would be: She does not exist; at least not as found.

I assume Zippy’s choice to equate sluts with fortune and rarity was probably more an (ironically) unfortunate result of haste than deliberation, but it appears to reveal that manly bias (In the sense that men seem to be born with it; not that it’s good and desirable.) to assume most women are fine the way they are; instead of  sin-full creatures who are each informed by a heart that is deceitful above all things…just like the rest of us. In Game parlance: It’s a form of pedestalization of women.

The truth is that four-leafed clovers don’t occur in the human wilds, and by human I mean spiritual. They are never found, but only cultivated…that is: lovingly washed. Roman Catholics celebrate the Immaculate Conception[2] precisely for the fact that it took the Original, Ultimate, and Only Maker of Perfect Gardens to produce[3] the Blessed Virgin Mary[3].

In one of his comments, Zippy opines on some of the tactics and signals a cad or pick-up artist would use to hunt for four-leafed three-leafed clovers, and how Game math works (or doesn’t).

[W]e know that PUAs don’t hit on all women. They have various explicit (tattoos, dress, makeup, venue, companions, etc) and implicit (many of which they are probably not aware of themselves) ways of deciding which specific women to target – much as the clover-hunter has his implicit and explicit ways of deciding where to look for four-leaf clovers. While we don’t know what the PUA’s preselection filter is formally, we do know that the set of preselected women is a subset of all women. Another way to say this is that PUA use Game on a sample of women which represents less than 100% of all women.

We know from the self-reported data of PUA that out of all preselected women  upon whom PUA attempt to apply Game, they succeed some small percentage of the time – 2.7% in the report linked in the previous post.

Given all that, we know that the set of women upon whom the PUA’s process – which we have labeled “Game” – actually works is something substantially smaller than 2.7% of all women. Given the preselection bias – because lets face it, he is going to approach the girl in tats and miniskirt before he approaches the modestly dressed woman, and the preselection function probably whittles down the pool by at least 10x – it is likely substantially less than 1%. [ed: some math redacted, but I have kept the meat of the excerpt. Follow the link above for the full text.]

What Zippy does not address (and what ties this back to my series on cultural detritus) is that virtually all women–even modestly dressed housewives–are imbibing fourth-leaf preventative; by TV show, after advertisement, after magazine article, after song, after movie, after TV show, after advertisement… each one dosing women to choose narcissism and sin while rejecting repentance and righteousness. The result is to prefer licentiousness and cads. Yes, I mean in most women, even among Christians.

The result is that we are both born into and confirmed towards a world brimming with three-leafed clovers, and so three-leafed clover tactics often work. Often especially on churched women with a modest appearance who are bolstered by that manly bias to pedestalize women; to assume innocence and goodness on no basis whatsoever. This is even more true once we admit that most men can’t differentiate a modest woman from a hole in the ground. More on that below.

The perversity of so much Game discussion is not a mathematical illiteracy which will not produce results; if by results we mean get a woman’s attentions. Game is reliable because the cultivation of four-leafed clovers is outlawed by our natures from birth, and by the tastes of our day..by the course of this age (some translations say “spirit of this age”).

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

The perversity (of many Game discussions) is actually two-fold. First, that the intent of the the great majority of Game discussions is how to prevent clovers from ever flowering that fourth leaf. It’s second intent is it’s Satanic twin: To condemn three-leafed clovers for their poverty.

The root of these foliage fooleries is best summed up by the blogger Rollo Tomassi, who accidentally struck gold while mining for pyrite:

The problem with your [Zippy’s] math is that everyone still wants a four leaf clover.

He meant to say that men want women of high value, but when we untangle the analogy, we see that what he said was entirely different, but more true: Most men believe sluts to be of high value, and do want them. It’s not surprising to me, but nevertheless still astounding because it not only flies in the face of the Scriptures, but–somewhat more stupefyingly–in the face of the evidence of our own eyes, and what the Game writers themselves preach!

From another angle: In contrast to the natural bias of most men to pedestalize women generally; to see them only as they ought to have been; never as they are. The bias of those who are enthralled with Game (as opposed to consider it, or even study it) is to see them as the sinful creatures they are; never as what they are meant to be. It is to confirm and retard women as sluts. As I said: Satanic. Christ came to redeem them.

While not all topics and discussions that are given the label Game is or has to be such, they largely are.

[1]If this post interests you, it is definitely worth your time to follow the link to Zippy’s to read both the comments, and his immediately preceding (and also short) post.

[2] Not a subscriber, myself.

[3] To both of which I am most definitely subscribed.

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “Sham-rocks and Other Fables

  1. I have frequently thought players want the illusion of a woman is only sluttish in relationship to them. “It’s not that she’s a slut. It’s that I’m so awesome.” Thus the perception of external high value factors (youth, beauty) while ignoring the fact that the girls who will sleep with them confirm their inherent belief that women are, on average, faithless whores.

    Meanwhile, I think that it is perfectly possible to train a woman to ignore her baser desires (though I’ll admit that I’m probably on the end of the spectrum more likely to take a library than a lover if I got bored and selfish.) It’s just that we have decided to not train girls in self control and are thus getting an interesting picture of the spectrum of fallen female nature.

  2. Cane:
    Zippy’s choice of the four-leafed clover as sluts in his metaphor is backwards both numerically and aesthetically.

    Aesthetically you can argue (though I’m not superstitious, because being superstitious is bad luck).

    Numerically my choice was exactly right though, both in terms of its precision and its accuracy. My point is not that most women aren’t sluts. (I don’t know how anyone familiar with my writing could read it that way, frankly). My point is that PUA methods and data (Game) only tell us about the specific population of women upon whom they actually work – just as the prostitute’s methods and data only tell us about the male population upon whom they actually work, that is, men who actually pay prostitutes for sex.

    What that says about all the rest of the female population is nothing at all. It doesn’t tell us that they are Good Girls. They might all be voracious whores – just voracious whores upon whom PUA techniques fail, thereby failing to tell us anything about them.

  3. @LtRM

    I can’t disagree.

    @Zippy

    Numerically my choice was exactly right though, both in terms of its precision and its accuracy. My point is not that most women aren’t sluts.

    The inaccuracy is in your poorly-chosen analogy. It’s a foundational error that skews your logic in a precise and predictable way. This results in the wide confusion demonstrated in the comments of your post.

    Clovers–like rocks–have a cultural baggage around them which makes them useful for analogies. Rubies are rare and beautiful. Individual grains of sand are not. Hence the value of a good woman is compared to rubies and not sand. We sift sand to look for rubies. We do not sift rubies to look for sand.

    Likewise, four-leafed clovers are rare and lucky (so the cultural baggage goes that might make clovers useful for an analogy), and searched for–searched for among the undesirable three-leafed variety. To ask your readers to ignore the fact that four-leafed clovers are rare (To wit: “What that says about all the rest of the female population is nothing at all.”) is absurd because the character of the female population is built into the clover analogy. Your use here only furthers the absurdity of discussions about the relations between men and women.

  4. Cane:
    The inaccuracy is in your poorly-chosen analogy.

    You are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong (hah!). That is to say, the entirety of your objection appears to be aesthetic (which I already granted).

    To ask your readers to ignore the fact that four-leafed clovers are rare…

    I’m not asking them to ignore that. It is exactly the point.

    It is precisely and accurately the point that, according to the “best of the best” PUA themselves, Game leading to sex is rare, contra the commenter who claimed the opposite in my combox and many who parrot the sentiment elsewhere. (That’s why PUA have to make it up in volume — approach, next, approach, next, approach, next — to find that relatively rare woman, rare according to their own numbers, who will give it up).

    Again, this says essentially nothing at all about what is going on in the wider world — the world of three-leaf clovers. The point is that numbers are used to create the impression of knowledge, when what the numbers actually demonstrate is ignorance.

  5. Cane,

    As a Catholic I want to applaud your well-placed and well-phrased mention of the Immaculate Conception. I almost never see that from a non-Catholic.

    I wonder sometimes what consequences the Catholic/Protestant differences on Mariology and ecclesiology have on our thinking about men, women, sex, and marriage in the Christian manosphere. I’d be surprised if the consequences were negligible, since Mary, the Church, and Woman are tightly related. Thoughts, anyone? (Zippy, I’m hoping you’ll pick this up and run with it)

  6. Does the confusion arise between two different groups: sluts in general and sluts on whom Game works? So within the three-leaf clover population of sluts there are the four-leaf clovers on whom game works (a rare subset)? It sounds more like a criticism of the effectiveness (due to short-sightedness) of Game than willful ignorance of woman’s natural state.

  7. @Zippy

    You are entitled to your opinion, but you are wrong (hah!)

    Ha!

    That is to say, the entirety of your objection appears to be aesthetic (which I already granted).

    From my (correct!) perspective, the aesthetics of an analogy are by far the most important part of it. Metaphors are intrinsically artistic things fabricated to bridge gaps in communication–itself an aesthetic endeavor. Therefore, an aesthetic endeavor that lacks proper aesthetics is simply lacking overall; including function and therefore accuracy. That’s what encourages guys like mdavidwhatever (no offense meant) come along and demand you write proof and theorem for a concept which, if I recall from his comments at Social Pathologist’s, mdavidwhatever should be agreeable.

    By the bye, I understand you and I to be in fair agreement about the general subject (and the inexhaustible equivocations) of Game.

    As I was writing this, I saw marissa posted a comment just now that neatly demonstrates the inaccuracy caused by poor metaphor construction. Now we’re talking about a four-leafed subset of the three-leafed variety of clovers. Worse, it seems to make sense.

    Precise, but not accurate. The idea is hitting a chosen target on the map, but the map doesn’t correspond to the terrain.

  8. @Nicholas

    Thanks, and welcome.

    I wonder sometimes what consequences the Catholic/Protestant differences on Mariology and ecclesiology have on our thinking about men, women, sex, and marriage in the Christian manosphere.

    It’s probably a mistake to separate the two too much. Roman Catholics are hugely influential. We, too, care what the Pope says and what the RCC does.

    That being said: My belief is to blame the codification of Marionology (and therefore not a little putting of women upon pedestals) on a bunch a Momma-boy clerics and scholars with the help of those who were too smart for their own britches. (Who needs britches when you have a cassock, amiright? Kidding.)

    What research I’ve done supports this–specifically the codification–and that it was done for no actual good reason; i.e., revelation. It was simply a weapon formed to fight a reformation that the Church desperately needed, but was badly executed on all sides. Ultimately, I must see it as a heresy caused by the elevation of the man-made science of Natural Law beyond it’s useful limits.

  9. Well of course you’d say that you damned Prot. Can’t you read I was talking to Zippy?

    (Thanks for the welcome. I’ve been lurking for many months now, ever since Morticia of happy memory put you at the top of some list. I like it here.)

  10. Oh, and:

    “It’s probably a mistake to separate the two too much.”

    That’s what we’ve been saying for 500 years!

  11. When I am giving examples of mathematical reasoning (or mathematical errors, as the case may be), what matters is that the mathematics and the examples correspond. I couldn’t care less about the aesthetics.

    And calling examples demonstrating mathematical reasoning “analogies” is a bit of a stretch of the term “analogy”. Demonstrating (say) derivatives using a fluid flow problem isn’t an “analogy”; it is applied mathematics. And the applied mathematics here apply to both slut-hunting and four-leaf-clover hunting.

  12. Zippy,
    PUA’s are shopping for puppies that won’t piss on the rug for a night. It’s not that puppies won’t piss on the rug; they all will in the right circumstances given enough time. It’s that they know how to tell which ones won’t be a hassle for them for an evening.

    Women in immodest clothing,, drinking, not afraid to leave her group of friends, in heels. There are other signs, such as tattoos, piercings, etc – but those are more of a “I do this all the time” instead of a signal to “I’d be up for doing it this one time”. Especially in circumstances such as birthdays, bachelorette parties, vacations, work conferences, etc.

    A puppy not pissing on a PUA’s floor means there’s a mess in store for the future owner.

  13. Realized I should state that both puppies and women can be trained not to piss on the carpet as long as they’re supervised, given healthy leadership, and healthy outlets.

    It is just that, with women, you need a little bit more training before you get them as the man than you do with the puppy. Puppies don’t have fallen human nature and rebellion working against them, nor do they have grace and God’s beauty as a reward.

    Which, I suppose, is why men have both dogs and wives; instead of just dogs.

  14. Cane, etc.
    I think Zippy’s analogy was spot on. After all, the PUAs are hoping to “get lucky”….
    Thank you! I’m here all week!
    I do find it interesting that so many commenters are talking about Zippy’s analogy. PUAs are *self-admittedly* searching for low-value targets. They are like investors that only seek out penny stocks and are then exited to get a low return.
    “I never even consider buying a stock worth more than $.30 a share and turn them over usually the same week. Last week I made $.14! WOOT! The system works!!”
    That’s… odd.
    WE might also be obscuring another point or three that these number tell us. PUAs and “game” types in general insist ‘all women respond to “game”. ALL WOMEN.’
    Yeah, but 90%+ of your target audience responds neutrally or negatively. Right? For all of the posts hither and thither of ‘good girls gone bad’, etc., the fact remains that even when maximizing their odds PUAs have a really low success rate.This seems to be an argument *against* the idea that ‘all women are like that’, doesn’t it? Sure, there are sluts out there – there always have been – but like a lot of other things about “game” they seem to get this wrong. Heck, often the only things they seem to get correct are what they cribbed from How to Make Friends and Influence People.

  15. @AD

    I think Zippy’s analogy was spot on. After all, the PUAs are hoping to “get lucky”….
    Thank you! I’m here all week!

    I am very sorry to inform you that sounds like a joke I would make. Welcome.

    WE might also be obscuring another point or three that these number tell us. PUAs and “game” types in general insist ‘all women respond to “game”. ALL WOMEN.[…] often the only things they seem to get correct are what they cribbed from How to Make Friends and Influence People.’

    This was/is one of my main contentions with how the word Game is used. When its use leads to sharing a bed, then Game is about how to get laid. When its use leads to sharing a joke, then Game is about smoothing relationships. Some people aren’t bothered by this, ah, fractal usage. To them Game means: “The applied psychology of how to have generally positive interactions with women.” That’s the definition I’ve adopted; rather uneasily and unevenly, I should add.

  16. Aquinas Dad:
    I wish I’d thought of that (“get lucky”) when I used four leaf clovers to illustrate the math problem. I try to fill my writing with Easter eggs like that for my own amusement, but this time it was pure accident.

  17. Cane,
    While I agree that your uneasy definition seems accurate it has the same problems as a horoscope; it is so general that any success is “game” and any failure is not “game”. What prompted me to begin researching the idea was the concept that ‘”game” teaches masculinity’.
    Such a diappointment.

  18. @AD

    While I agree that your uneasy definition seems accurate it has the same problems as a horoscope; it is so general that any success is “game” and any failure is not “game”.

    Agreed, and I’m not terribly interested in defending Game. Half-hearted is too much by nearly half.

    That being said: Your criticism is pretty much the problem with any sociological/psychological teaching endeavor.

    Hence: the sacraments, obedience as the measure, etc. Less, “To be a karate master you kick your opponent like this.”; more: “Show me sand the floor!”

    @Zippy

    I try to fill my writing with Easter eggs like that for my own amusement

    I spent an inordinate amount of time contemplating punny titles. In this instance, I was (too) pleased with myself for working clovers, rubies, and falsehood into “sham-rock”. However; I always hope others get a kick out of them.

  19. So the two angles you describe: I find myself stuck at times in between them. I instead of going straight, I stray to the left and right, the two perspectives you describe. So what is the straight and narrow path I am missing? That is the question I am trying to answer for myself, and I do believe is the question you are trying to point your readers too.

  20. “Most men believe sluts to be of high value, and do want them. It’s not surprising to me, but nevertheless still astounding because it not only flies in the face of the Scriptures, but–somewhat more stupefyingly–in the face of the evidence of our own eyes, and what the Game writers themselves preach!”

    Well, yes. That’s because they’re hedonists. They preach about the decline of the western woman — that no woman wants to perform wifely duties — while elevating the status of the sluts. The PUAs help facilitate the decline of the western woman in this manner. Roissy, for instance, pines for the days when women weren’t completely wrapped up in feminism, but he is only exacerbating the problem not only be being a whoremonger himself but also by teaching other men to be whoremongers. As one of the Internet’s foremost instructors of hedonism, he shares in the blame.

  21. thidwick:
    while elevating the status of the sluts

    This is bound up with their own overweening pride. Pretending that low-value men who happen to be proficient at getting “lucky” with low-value women are “alpha” feeds the egos of both the sluts and the cads.

    The Christian part of the manosphere has bought into the frame of the cads — the idea that cads are high-value ‘alpha males’ as opposed to the sexual garbage collectors near the bottom of any objective value scale that they are in reality. This – this valuing of Leisure Suit Larry as “high value” by men – is actually a big reward for the sluts, because it means that men in general are buying into the idea that the sluts are ‘getting them some alpha’; when in fact what they are getting some of frequently requires penicillin.

    If you want to make sluts happy (and good girls miserable), keep propagating the lie that cads are high-value “alpha males”.

  22. @Zippy

    This – this valuing of Leisure Suit Larry as “high value” by men – is actually a big reward for the sluts, because it means that men in general are buying into the idea that the sluts are ‘getting them some alpha’; when in fact what they are getting some of frequently requires penicillin.

    And the things that can be treated with penicillin are the easiest to deal with because it merely requires doctors. The spiritual, mental, and even genetic pollution are unsolvable except by God.

  23. Pingback: When you give a slut a cookie … | Zippy Catholic

  24. @AD

    I disagree, but I would agree with “they are not only/merely/just teaching endeavors”. Marriage ends at death. The Mass will not be celebrated on the New Earth. There will be no need for priests, confession, etc. the sacraments are signs–not just signs–but they are still signs, and signs teach.

  25. As an Orthodox I’ll reject the minor quibble. The sacraments are teaching endeavors as well as a good many other things. Baptism instructs us, the Holy Liturgy instructs us, and confession most _definitely_ instructs us.

    If I have time I’ll go back and read Zippy’s post. He is smart, but he often attacks game in I think the unwise ways. Even this four leaf clover analogy doesn’t do much with game since he restricts the field to copulation and not attraction. And I say this as someone who agrees with him that most “alphas” don’t do well overall in life; at least as described by game.

  26. GKC:
    … since he restricts the field to copulation and not attraction.

    That wasn’t me. That was a commenter in my comboxes, who kept repeating his views on “what most women will spread their legs for” — including in additional comments that I did not pass through moderation. His understanding is consistent with what we have been assured Alpha really means by Game experts/PUA themselves.

  27. Pingback: Alternatives to Game | Free Northerner

  28. Pingback: Further Ruminations on Game | Donal Graeme

  29. Pingback: Responses to Alternatives | Free Northerner

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