Scott Adams speculate about why people love video games and thinks that one of the things women instinctively do is screen men for defects that would make them unsuitable as mates. He says women like Tetris, a video game I know, and mahjong, a game with tiles I know only from its mention in Mad magazine.
I think women do sort men for reproductive fitness. Women who are older and not looking to have kids are willing to accept a man who is not the alpha male of game legend; I think this accounts for essentially all my relationships. But I think there is something deeper going on here.
I think these games are more about patterns than defects; women are more sensitive to lack of harmony or disorganization than men. They like sorting and arranging things, but they like sorting and arranging people more.
This affects social relations a great deal; men are focused on a goal, and organize themselves to meet that goal. Only as much harmony and organization as are necessary for the group to function are required. Women on the other hand must have a high degree of harmony and organization first; the task is almost secondary.
MRAs complain any organization that contains women will eventually become female-oriented, and I think this is true. The military, or the combat part anyway, is almost all male, and teaches a very goal-oriented, and very effective method, of getting things done. (The few females who were around that I encountered created a great deal of chaos.) When I went into the civilian world, with about a 50/50 mix, these methods seemed to be completely rejected by everyone; not only were they not accepted, they actually seemed offended by it.
I’m not talking about screaming at people, I’m talking about “OK this is what we need to do; you do this, you do this, and you do this. Any questions?” In the civilian world, the rule seemed to be you are friends with your employees, and because they like you and you are their friend they do their jobs. The idea that they are being paid and thus should do their jobs whether they like them or not or whether they like you or not seemed to be regarded as unbearably fascist.
With enough women in the environment, harmony seems to take first place. The way a woman sees it, everyone she has social contact must fit together somehow; on the other hand people she doesn’t have social contact with, and who are below her, don’t exist.
The bsocially unskilled male approach to relationships is goal-oriented. I’m attracted to this woman; I should persuade her I’m a good guy, and she should have a relationship with me. What a nerd thinks a woman would like is entirely different from what a woman actually likes, but that’s another subject.
The Mystery Method talks about establishing attraction, then comfort. I think my mistake- and the typical omega mistake- is to try to establish comfort first. This is called “being polite”, or “being nice”, and it is something my mother had me do on pain of death.
The reason this doesn’t work is that as far as a woman is concerned, a man of lower status than her, with whom she does not have a defined relationship, simply does not exist. She is dimly aware of lower status women, because she must rank herself against other women; but this doesn’t apply to men.
That doesn’t mean such men won’t approach her, especially if her appearance is average or above. I’m thinking of the 50-year-old virgin, who related a story of making a comment to a woman in an appliance store, and who was aggressively rude to him. This is the infamous “Bitch Shield”. His blog is gone, but what she said was more of less, “Do you work here? No? Then why are you talking to me?”
Let me make an aside here- and say that what we think of as female virtues are actually male virtues, and projected to women as part of the female supremacy project started in the Victorian era. We are taught that women are polite; but politeness is actually a way that lower and higher status men relate, or men who don’t know each other relate.
What was happening here was that 50YOV, not having immediately established himself as a high status man, had to be categorized by the woman into one of two categories- a store employee, who would be low status but possibly useful, or any other low status man, who should not approach her, speak to her or even look at her.
I don’t think a lot of men understand this, because men don’t have a category of social non-existence. All men are at least dimly aware that every person serves some kind of purpose, and fills some role in the greater scheme of things.
The process of establishing a relationship with a woman is largely a matter of evading disqualification, or “Fuckup Avoidance Game” as Roissy calls it. That’s why attraction comes first; if the woman is not motivated to talk to you, you enter the category of social non-existence. Low status men are in the habit of being polite, because as a low status person you must signal that you are cooperative and not going to rock the boat; but as a consequence of this, women regard politeness a sign of low status and grounds for immediate dismissal. Even betas figure this out at an early age; it confused and upset me as an adolescent that girls giggled and got excited at what appeared to me to be rude, goofy behavior from guys, but that’s just how the game is played.
Still, something called “comfort” has to come after attraction has been established, but this isn’t being nice or polite either. After a woman has decided you are a man she should relate to socially- that is, a man of higher status than her- she must fit you into her network of social relations. She has to determine he isn’t a physical or social threat to her, that he will not cause her embarrassment or trouble, and he is a potential boyfriend of some sort.
And this is a sorting game. For the woman to have fun with it, it should be challenging but not frustrating. With a beta the game is easy, because she knows he will behave appropriately to her mom, her friends, and whoever else she may need to display him to.
With an alpha, it’s harder but a lot more exciting and fun. Alphas are rare creatures- in any given social environment there can only be one real, actual alpha, as opposed to someone who displays alpha characteristics, which is what we’re talking about 99% of the time when we use the term- and bringing one into a new social environment is sure to stir things up. Will he try to fuck her friends? Will her try to fuck her mom? Will dismiss her father’s or her brother’s opinions on football? He might be a dick and make her look bad, or he might be exciting and charming and raise her social status significantly with her family and friends by proxy. This is the ideal outcome.
Women actually love ambiguity, because it adds to the excitement. This is why you want to be vague about the future of the relationship as much as you can.
The fundamental rule as always is that women are different from men and like and respond to different things.