Mathematical illiteracy and Game

January 10, 2014 § 75 Comments

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.

§ 75 Responses to Mathematical illiteracy and Game

  • nickbsteves says:

    A better title may have been “Mathematical illiteracy and Pickup Artistry”

  • Ita Scripta Est says:

    Zippy,

    I think it was you who said it best (somewhere some months ago) that PUA claims of “do it yourself” success are analogous to the libertarian fetish for entrepreneurship. They both said “see it can work for you!” This aptly displays the underlying liberalism of both movements.

  • sunshinemary says:

    I see your point, but wouldn’t you agree that there has been an exceptionally bountiful crop of four-leaf clover as of late? Of course, that makes one wonder if it is the hunter’s prowess and skill or just the great availability of prey.

    The problem is that normal clover, the three-leaf kind, are viewed as probably having been or probably just about to turn into the four-leaf kind. Some of the four-leaf hunters even chide other men for believing in fairy tales like the existence of normal three-leaf clover because any three-leaf clover you find probably has a secret leaf hidden somewhere…

  • earl says:

    You should be shrewd enough to be aware that most clovers have the capablity of four leaves…innocent enough to believe that most clovers still only have three.

  • The body of infield evidence collected by 15 years of PUA is far more reliable and valid than anything social science has ever produced on seduction.

    – Nick Krauser

    The problem with your math is that everyone still wants a four leaf clover.

  • sunshinemary says:

    You should be shrewd enough to be aware that most clovers have the capablity of four leaves…innocent enough to believe that most clovers still only have three.

    Very wise, Earl.

  • Zippy says:

    It seems possible to me to, at one and the same time, take a dim view of social science and of the notion that prostitutes’ collective ‘wisdom’ about their johns represents a dramatic improvement over social science in terms of understanding men. Especially when the latter is demonstrably mathematically illiterate about its own limitations.

  • It would also be a better analogy if clovers came with a spectrum of leaves numbering between and absolute minimum of 3 and a maximum of 4, and that the mean & variance were difficult to determine but changing with time.

  • And it would also be a better analogy if some of the technique used to find 4-leafers also helped you find 3-leafers, and some of the techniques helped you (and the clover you found) live happier lives.

  • Because of their success in collecting four leaf clovers these men go around pronouncing that most clovers have four leaves

    Once again, I keep posting this video in which we see that most clovers do indeed have four leaves.

    Sorry for repeatedly posting it, but you seem to be repeatedly ignoring it.

    I await your answer to this video.

    Some time ago, I read a bunch of female Romance novels to better understand the nature of women.

    My conclusions from this study were:

    Women like assholes.

    Women really like criminals.

    Women really really like murderers.

    Women really really really like sadistic murderers.

    Women really really really really like sadistic serial murderers, hence the present popularity of werewolves and vampires as romantic figures. (Used to be pirates, same principle)

    This is not very useful information. What useful information did I discover?

    That women like men who effortlessly and gracefully pass [fitness] tests, consistent with Heartistes claim that women can no more refrain from giving men [fitness] tests than men can refrain from looking at a woman’s boobs.

  • Silly Interloper says:

    It’s astonishing, JAD, that you keep posting that video as if it really showed us any empirical data at all. In no way does it give us any indication of the proportion of mall population the fawning girls represent, let alone the greater population of women. And an attraction to sudden mass interest does not a slut make. We don’t know the disposition of all of these girls in the video. It’s embarrassing that someone has to explain that to you.

  • MarcusD says:

    Re: education levels of prostitutes:

    Happen to have a source on hand: 31.3% have completed at least some college (and up to graduate studies), and 68.4% have at least completed high school.

    Clarke, Ross J., et al. “Age at entry into prostitution: relationship to drug use, race, suicide, education level, childhood abuse, and family experiences.” Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 22.3 (2012): 270-289.

    http://newswire.uark.edu/articles/16181/affluent-educated-women-may-choose-sexual-prostitution

  • Silly Interloper commented:

    “It’s astonishing, JAD, that you keep posting that video as if it really showed us any empirical data at all. In no way does it give us any indication of the proportion of mall population the fawning girls represent,

    It is a random tour of a random mall at a random time. No one announced in advance that famous guy no one had ever heard off was turning up. Therefore the proportion of fawning girls in the mall is representative.

    Every girl that we see in the video that is in the raging hormones age group fawns. We don’t see any girls continuing with their shopping entirely unaffected. We don’t see any males, except for the stooges and mall employees, affected. Therefore a large proportion of girls in the mall, possibly all of them, random girls in a random mall at a random time, fawn. Not all of them appear close to orgasm, only a handful, but all of them are strongly and visibly affected.

  • earl says:

    “For some reason lots of other men – men who, rather ironically, especially pride themselves on dispassionate logic and rational thinking – believe them.”

    Zippy-

    Have you ever read the book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible? If not…read it. It’ll give you a different perspective on just how valuable it is to be prideful about logic and rational thinking.

    In fact that book pulls no punches on what this world is about.

  • earl says:

    “That women like men who effortlessly and gracefully pass shit tests, consistent with Heartistes claim that women can no more refrain from giving men shit tests than men can refrain from looking at a woman’s boobs.”

    The more I get into the nature of women, even this life in general…the more I realize that a man needs BOTH the red pill and the blue pill. If you go too far in either corner…you will drive yourself insane.

  • Silly Interloper says:

    Therefore the proportion of fawning girls in the mall is representative.

    Wow.

    You are watching edited video which was focused only on the things the chap taking the video was focused upon at the time with no possible way to capture the entire mall, and you are convinced that it is representative of all womankind? Man, you must be the most gullible man alive–a propagandist’s wet dream.

    You are the proof of the title of this blog entry. You don’t even know the first thing about sampling and you don’t know what “random” means, either.

    Please, please stop embarrassing yourself.

  • mdavid444444 says:

    Zippy, I’m bemused with your mathematical illiteracy meme. It’s beneath your style. It’s strange to claim a game guy like Vox is “mathematically illiterate” with a straight face (I agree he’s oft wacko). And certainly not a guy like Isaac Newton who was also really, really wacko but invented the calculus. Hell, I made a perfect 800 on the old math GRE (which sadly makes me one of the most “literate” math idiots) and even I disagree (in general) with your viewpoint here.

    Summary: sure, call people you disagree with stupid or whatever, but leave the math thing aside. Female proclivities – even if definable in a mathematical way – would likely fall on a rough “bell curve” and the debate would hinge on where the mean or median of the bell curve lies. And that would have to be found by experiment or test. And even that would certainly change over time and place (as Sunshine Mary points out above) and would be tough to define with any confidence.

  • @Zippy – This comment thread shows why moderation is necessary on most traditionalist blogs.

    If you let them, the demon servants and worshippers will poison everything that aspires to be wholesome – and drag you down with them. It is their main delight – I mean, their *only* delight.

    Moderate – ruthlessly.

  • Zippy says:

    mdavid444444:
    It’s strange to claim a game guy like Vox is “mathematically illiterate” with a straight face

    I haven’t. I’m not a regular reader of Vox, nor have I read more than a blog post or two by him in my entire life, so I can’t say whether he is or is not mathematically illiterate.

    But the comment I linked to in the OP by one of my own commenters is definitely mathematically illiterate. Furthermore it expresses a common fallacy that I see everywhere in the manosphere: X beds lots of women, he says Y about all the women he beds, therefore Y is true of women in general.

    Anyone who buys that chain of pseudo-reasoning is mathematically illiterate, for reasons I have explained. And I’ve encountered plenty of PhD’s in my life who are mathematically illiterate when it comes to their own pet ideologies (Paul Krugman anyone?).

  • Zippy says:

    Bruce:
    This comment thread shows why moderation is necessary on most traditionalist blogs.

    Or most blogs in general. It is closely related to the whole ‘to blog or not to blog’ question, for me.

  • Denise says:

    I’m sorry but this analysis doesn’t make sense. The video only pans the girls within view of the guy, in other words, the girls who are excited about him being there. You hear a woman asking who it is, and some show of surprise, but no indication that she rushed over there. You don’t see how many women or girls couldn’t care less. Moreover, yes, people get excited about celebrities. And that translates to anyone eager to see a celebrity would be willing to sleep with them. Major leaps and bounds in speculation there. Moreover, the guy impersonates a celebrity successfully, generates commotion, and leaves with the number of 1 girl. One. And thinks he’s hot stuff because of it. It must be rough in the streets if it takes all that to get 1 date.

  • sunshinemary says:

    If you let them, the demon servants and worshippers will poison everything that aspires to be wholesome – and drag you down with them. It is their main delight – I mean, their *only* delight.

    Moderate – ruthlessly.

    I wish I had understood that when I started blogging. If you start out not moderating, it becomes increasingly difficult to do so later. It is always easier to loosen strict standards than to tighten lax standards, as I have found out the hard way.

  • Zippy says:

    I usually try to moderate by treating commentary the way it deserves to be treated rather than silencing it outright, though as an unapologetic authoritarian I’m not even slightly averse to the latter when needed. As a result I’ve managed to keep my traffic numbers low over the years with what seems to me to be a pretty high class of commenter, generally speaking. That suits me fine, because if I started to develop the kind of traffic that SSM has to deal with I would probably either moderate all comments or just shut them off entirely until traffic reset itself to the present level.

    Blogging frequently attracts people who disagree with me and helps me refine my own thoughts; though at other times it is like talking to a bag of hammers, or trying to have a discussion with the rats in a filthy outhouse as the case may be. So comment moderation and the motivation for blogging at all are pretty closely intertwined. I respect Bruce’s position and mostly take the view that blogging is a vehicle for me to express and refine my own thoughts, much moreso than to convince others of much of anything.

  • Retrenched says:

    More likely, the four leaf hunters are smart enough to realize that many of the clovers which appear to have only three leaves actually have a fourth that they’re carefully hiding from almost everyone, almost all of the time.

    Most of the four leaf clovers Krauser has found would probably look like three leavers to men who aren’t looking for that fourth leaf.

  • Zippy says:

    We can tell whatever just-so stories we want to about hidden leaves. But those are pure supposition: they are not a consequence of the actual data. Any “success rate” at all can be rationalized away under a “hidden leaves” theory, and women aren’t the only ones with strong rationalization hamsters.

  • You compare Game to a placebo; is that a good thing? Bad thing? Indifferent? Maybe I’m just slow on the uptake, but I’m not quite sure what your actual criticism is here.

    As I understand it, no Game guru has ever asserted a 100% success rate. They’ve said that by mimicking certain behaviors of bad boy cads, a man can have significantly increased success at meeting and dating women.

    As I said in the previous thread, fornication is a mortal sin so pick up artistry that has that end in mind is not an option for the practicing Christian. But PUA isn’t the whole of the manosphere. A significant part is self-improvement: be confident, hit the gym, pursue your goals, don’t put up with your woman’s nonsense, etc. You can knock them for saying things which are trite or common sense, but here in the rubble of the Sexual Revolution, what used to be common sense often has the thrill of youthful rebellion.

    If cads and whores have an easier time of it and are even socially lauded these days, then I think it’s a case of, excuse the expression “Don’t hate the player dude, hate the game.”

  • Zippy says:

    Beefy Levinson:
    Maybe I’m just slow on the uptake, but I’m not quite sure what your actual criticism is here.

    My actual criticism is right there in the OP: that when people say the kind of thing that was stated in the cited comment, they are committing a mathematically illiterate fallacy. Not only do they not know what they are talking about empirically: they demonstrate that their reasoning is itself faulty quite independent of the empirical facts.

    What further you want to make of that is up to you.

  • Zippy says:

    As far as guidance on further inferences goes, the analogous situation, as I suggested several times before, would be if significant numbers of young Christian women started to go to Internet prostitutes for advice on how to attract and keep a husband, started reading and promoting books about the basic nature of men written by prostitutes, made heroes of prostitutes and former prostitutes, created models of how most (but NAMALT of course) men are based on the reports of prostitutes about their johns, took on the notion that all men are potential johns and should be expected to act like johns and just need the right enticement, etc, so a husband should always be treated as if he could end up in a whorehouse at the drop of a funny hat, etc.

    What could possibly go wrong with good Christian women lionizing and taking advice from whores?

    The fact that Game and placebo are comparable in effectiveness is interesting because it shows just what you get for selling your soul: a sugar pill.

  • MarcusD says:

    @Zippy

    Are you working from a position of gender symmetry?

    Furthermore, what is your understanding of masculinity and femininity in these scenarios?

  • Zippy says:

    MarcusD:
    I’m not sure I understand your questions properly, but I’ll attempt to answer them anyway. I assume the context is my own latest comment.

    While everyone naturally desires more from it, in its most debased form sex is an animal transaction between a man and a woman. The woman’s most basic carnal need in the transaction is for the male’s commitment; the man’s is for the sex act itself. (Again they each generally do desire more; but this is the most basic animal desire).

    On the female side of the hierarchy-of-need you have the slut, who gets nothing in exchange: she gets at best a false illusion of commitment. Next up the ladder is the prostitute, who gets actual money, which is some degree of actual tangible commitment. So arguably the prostitute is ‘better’ than the slut, although that is like saying, well, it is like saying that a hit man is better than a serial killer. Praising with slightly fainter damns, if you will.

    On the male side of the ladder things are different. The beta orbiter (of a slut) corresponds to the slut: he gives away the man’s side of the transaction for absolutely nothing in return: at best he gets an illusion of the possibility of sex, just as the slut at best gets an illusion of the possibility of commitment from the cad. The cad is just above him, occupying the spot that the prostitute occupies on the female ladder: he actually gets ‘paid’ (men are paid in sex, women in resources, in a context where sex has been debased to nothing but its animal dimension).

    So taking advice from cads about women in general is like taking advice from prostitutes about men in general. But cads only have experience with sluts, by definition; and prostitutes only have experience with johns, by definition.

    Does that answer the questions?

  • You are watching edited video which was focused only on the things the chap taking the video was focused upon at the time with no possible way to capture the entire mall,

    They are walking around the mall. Even though the cameraman focuses on responsive females in the foreground, If there were a significant number of unresponsive females, we would see some.unresponsive females in the background.

  • The video only pans the girls within view of the guy, in other words, the girls who are excited about him being there

    He is wandering through a random mall at a random time. There ought to be random girls all over the place going about their shopping. What is happening is that every girl is drawn in as if they are iron filings and his [redacted] is a magnet.

  • Any “success rate” at all can be rationalized away under a “hidden leaves” theory, an women aren’t the only ones with strong rationalization hamsters.

    The success rate of the guy in the video looks to be pretty good.

  • the analogous situation, as I suggested several times before, would be if significant numbers of young Christian women started to go to Internet prostitutes for advice on how to attract and keep a husband,

    I think if they did that, would be rather smart of them.

    Certainly one hell of a lot better than taking advice from priests, teachers, or their frequently single mothers.

    In a healthy sane society, advice from teachers, priests and fathers would be better than advice from cam whores, but we live in an unhealthy and insane society.

  • Zippy says:

    FYI James, I’ve dropped your several comments into moderation until I have time to look them over.

  • In any case, Holy Mother Church needs to do a better job catechizing the faithful about true Christian marriage, both from the pulpit and in marriage preparation courses. For 2013, the USA is once again number one for granting marriage anullments, accounting for 60% of all anullments in the world. America, f*** yeah, I suppose.

  • Ita Scripta Est says:

    In any case, Holy Mother Church needs to do a better job catechizing the faithful about true Christian marriage, both from the pulpit and in marriage preparation courses. For 2013, the USA is once again number one for granting marriage anullments, accounting for 60% of all anullments in the world. America, f*** yeah, I suppose.

    Why not hold up ancient tradition and promote the celibate life instead of marriage? We have had far too much marriage promotion since Vatican II. Zippy mentioned that it has to do with the wider Protestant influence which is probably true. What do we have to show for it? Aim for heaven and you’ll get the earth thrown in and all.

  • Why not hold up ancient tradition and promote the celibate life instead of marriage?

    The Church can and should do that too. Even if one third of all Catholics have a vocation to the religious life, that’s still two thirds who will probably get married. It’s not a coincidence that priestly and religious vocations cratered alongside the crisis of marriage.

  • earl says:

    The celibate life would certainly bring light back into the darkness. Then people would have a clear idea of what they should do in life.

    Sex outside of the correct context is the reason why so many people are blind.

  • Pilgrim of the East says:

    Hello,
    Your argument is, as I understand it, basically NAWALT, that “game” works only on certain kind of women and PUAs are victims of selection bias as they only bed easy-to-bed women. See also comment you wrote in previous discussion:
    They are garbage collectors insofar as the [sluts they actually bed are] garbage.

    Fixed it for you. Watch what you catch in your filters.

    But there lies important question – are four leaves clovers actually sluts or chaste girls? If I look at number of sexual partners statistics, it certainly seems that your analogy is way off…

  • Zippy says:

    Pilgrim:
    The ‘success rate’ numbers for the effectiveness of Game are self-reported by PUAs. Game succeeds on a small percentage of women, at least according to its practitioners themselves.

    That says nothing at all about the women upon whom it fails – other than that it fails.

    You have proposed a false dichotomy. The population of men who do not go to prostitutes is not “chaste men”. Most men don’t go to prostitutes, and the impressions of prostitutes are not a reliable source of information about “most men”. It doesn’t follow that most men are or have been chaste.

    Most women – almost all women, somewhere north of 97% by their own numbers – do not fall for the PUAs deceptions that he labels “Game”. Just as the prostitute services only a particular sort of man, the PUA services only a particular sort of woman.

  • Zippy says:

    James:
    I approved most of your comments. You are welcome to keep commenting here, but please keep your manner of expression more civil.

  • mdavid444444 says:

    Zippy, Anyone who buys that chain of pseudo-reasoning is mathematically illiterate, for reasons I have explained. And I’ve encountered plenty of PhD’s in my life who are mathematically illiterate when it comes to their own pet ideologies

    For reasons you’ve explained? I don’t think so. Here’s why.

    1. Math, or formal logic, needs clear definitions (if the truth is actually being sought) and I doubt many game people would agree with yours, outside of a few people you have found on a particular thread. It’s like claiming Barbara Marx Hubbard = Catholic, laughing, and saying QED.

    2. Most PhD’s have no serious mathematical creds, period, unless they are math, physics, engineering, etc. types and often not even then. And the few who do, even if they disagree with your assessment of something, can oft explain their logic train without a flaw (wackos do this all the time, crazy wrong idea from flawless logic). Again, many famous math guys (Newton, for example, I could list others) believe incredibly silly stuff, but kept their math and logic intact merely by changing the assumptions and definitions. But it’s simply incorrect to call these sorts of wackos mathematically illiterate. In a sense, they are more literate, because they can keep the logical chain intact with great skill where others would simply use Occam’s Razor and call it quits.

    3. I’ve waded through your links, and either I’m too stupid to see how your math point expands to game in general or it’s slippery enough that the subject can’t be hardwired as mathematical reasoning as you are wont to do. There are no proper definitions of game outside of one guy and one narrow discussion, to start with, which you then expand into the general viewpoint of “game”. This is why I brought up a popular game guy who is math sharp (Vox, I don’t know his creds). So I can see where the straw man complaints about your topic come from. I hear people doing this to Catholic viewpoints nonstop, and it doesn’t reflect well for Catholics to do it either.

  • Scott W. says:

    Off-topic: Lydia has a link to Zmirak’s “Illiberal Catholicism”, which I would love to here your input, but what I was really interested in is if you have read Patrick Deneen’s “Democratic Faith” and if so, is it any good?

  • Most women – almost all women, somewhere north of 97% by their own numbers – do not fall for the PUAs deceptions that he labels “Game”.

    Your interpretation has that 2.7% of girls sleeping with every PUA that hits on them.

    If so those girls would be mighty busy.

    If every girl is hit on by ten PUAs a week, and sleeps with one of them every month, that is more consistent with the reported PUA numbers. than your interpretation.

  • please keep your manner of expression more civil.

    I am unaware than any of my comments were uncivil. What did you find uncivil?

  • Ita Scripta Est says:

    Off-topic: Lydia has a link to Zmirak’s “Illiberal Catholicism”, which I would love to here your input, but what I was really interested in is if you have read Patrick Deneen’s “Democratic Faith” and if so, is it any good?

    Lydia the mother hen of right-liberalism says that we can only play on liberalism’s terms…because…she just “feels” that way.

  • Ita Scripta Est says:

    Everything she writes provides the best example of why “alliances” with heretics is such a waste of time.

  • earl says:

    Putting up a facade only works with women that are looking for a facade.

    I’d imagine the success rate with women would be higher than 2.7% if you just speak and live in the truth all the time.

    I’d say you’d have close to 100% success with women.

  • Putting up a facade only works with women that are looking for a facade.

    So women putting on makeup and wearing high heeled shoes only works with men who are looking for makeup?

    A large part of game, by far the largest part, is appearing to be higher status and more successful with women than one actually is, but another large part of game, is actually being manly. I am pretty sure that close to 100% of women, as near 100% as makes no difference, are looking for manly men.

    And as for faking status, no alternative, because female conception of male status is childlike and primitive, hence their preference for criminals and serial killers, illustrated by the “Twilight” series and its horde of imitators.

    Having real status, as women understand real status, would involve actually being a gangster or a serial killer. Faking it is better.

  • MarcusD says:

    @Zippy

    That answers part of my (overarching) question. Also, your assumption is correct.

    What I’m also trying to understand is how attraction fits into this. You’ve explained the roles that men and women play in the transaction, but not really why they would be involved in the transaction (beyond just basic instinct). In other words, the distinction I see between your analogy above (i.e. women turning to prostitutes for guidance) and the issue of attraction is that Game, at least in some aspects, is designed to make men more attractive to women (and not necessarily to facilitate “cad”-ish behaviour – that is, for Christian men, securing marriage). Would women, who take guidance from prostitutes, have the same goal in mind (that is, trying to secure marriage)? My understanding of “girl Game” is that it tries to at least imitate femininity (which is to say, traditionally feminine traits). Would guidance from prostitutes be similar to “girl Game”?

    Do you feel gender asymmetry, in the supply/demand sense, plays a role?

  • MarcusD says:

    For 2013, the USA is once again number one for granting marriage anullments, accounting for 60% of all anullments in the world.

    I believe the US has always had the highest number of annulments. I think its proportion to Catholic population is also among the worst, too.

    We have had far too much marriage promotion since Vatican II.

    And very little in the way of results. Regarding celibacy, I think promoting increased use of technology (and careers) would likely help it along (a la Japan). I say that (mostly) facetiously.

  • Zippy says:

    mdavid444444:
    From my perspective, this is how our interaction has gone:

    I criticized a particular mathematically illiterate proposition as mathematically illiterate, in the OP. I used natural language – English words – to do this, not something more formal.

    You responded as a first-time commenter by suggesting that, while ‘stupid’ or what have you would be an acceptable term, you specifically objected to the term ‘mathematically illiterate’ as applied to the proposition I was criticizing. At the same time you conflated my criticism of the specific proposition with a criticism I haven’t made of a blogger I don’t read.

    Now your criticism seems to be that I used words and stuff in my criticism of the proposition I am criticizing rather than expressing it with a bit more formalism than the straight natural language that I use to make my blog posts as succinct and understandable as possible to as many people as possible (or at least to the kind of people who tend to read and comment here).

    OK.

    Let W = the set of all women.
    Let wi be a particular woman
    Let P be the PUA’s (unspecified) preselection filter, since we 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 { [pi] … } is a subset of all women { [wi] …}. 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 { [pi] } 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. So the Game function G(pi) = 1 every once in a while and G(pi) = 0 most of the time.

    Given all that, we know that the set of women upon whom the PUA’s process – which we have labeled “Game” – actually works (produces the result G(wi)=1) 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%.

    Notice that this is all true even though the PUA in question – like the four leaf clover hunter – claims to bed tens or hundreds of women (find tens or hundreds of clovers) every year.

    The proposition I criticized as mathematically illiterate (because it is mathematically illiterate) was the claim that, since the PUA beds many women each year, the majority of women in general are susceptible to his methods and can be psychologically characterized accurately using his models.

    Now, the great majority of my readers probably don’t need all that to get the point. They can see that a clover hunter can find many clovers in a given year even though four leaf clovers are only one in ten thousand clovers, and can tell by inference that there is something wrong with the idea that because DoucheFace beds lots of sluts, he knows how to get most women into bed.

    In fact in my view the more this gets formalized, the less clear it will be to most readers — if only because their eyes will glaze over. That’s why when I wrote that the proposition was mathematically illiterate, I showed how it was mathematically illiterate using regular natural language and words rather than the lightweight gesture in the general direction of formalism that has made this comment too long.

    I mean, I could probably write (as anyone who is mathematically literate would know) a 50 page paper on why two plus two is four and what it all means and doesn’t mean that two plus two is four. But that is outside of the scope of my own goals with this post. With this post I’m just trying to make the point that the proposition I am criticizing is mathematically illiterate.

  • Zippy says:

    MarcusD:
    Would guidance from prostitutes be similar to “girl Game”?

    I was more or less absent from the blogosphere during the heyday of Alte’s blogging about “Girl game” and such. But the difference between taking advice from submissive married homeschooling Christian women with broods of children about how to land and keep a good husband, and taking advice from prostitutes about how to use sex (as little as absolutely necessary) to get men to cough up resources (as much as possible), should be self evident enough.

  • Pilgrim of the East says:

    @Zippy:
    you fail to take into account, that there is also competition among PUAs –
    his 2.7% can be just as well interpreted that only in this number of cases was his game better than of his competitors.
    Also, you wrongly assume that use of game is successful only when actual sex occurs – we can surely use other metrics – like response percentage in online dating, you could surely see there results which far surpass effect of placebo – or just look at Karuser’s percentage of number closes – I am pretty sure I wouldn’t have even 10% success rate if I actually tried it…

    Also, is there already any exact definition of “game”? Some people may even say, that almost every sex with woman is result of some kind of game… If we take as definition of game “imitation of behaviours of men, who are most successful in bedding large numbers of women”, then if we agree with idea that these days there is small number of alphas sleeping with disproportionally larger number(maybe even majority?) of women, then game works by it’s very definition (and my previous argument about number of promiscuous women is therefore justified)

    (and I won’t even start about PUAs being generally too lazy to game women for longer periods of time and instead just “next” them – which will surely hurt their statistics)

  • Zippy says:

    Pilgrim:
    Actual sex as the definition of ‘success’ was drawn from the actual proposition I was criticizing, drawn from the reader’s comments from the previous post linked in the OP. Of course all manner of variations on all sorts of claims are possible, including taking the exit door from the land of empirical data and (rather uninterestingly) declaring Game successful by definition.

  • Zippy says:

    Scott:
    I haven’t read anything by Zmirak since his big meltdown comparing failing-to-vote-Republican to masturbation, and I haven’t seen anything that would motivate me to start reading him again.

    Sorry to say I haven’t read Deneen’s book either. From the description at Amazon it seems like Deneen is trying to advocate support of democracy-as-structure from a ‘pragmatic’ perspective.

    I think all attempts to build a politics from a ‘pragmatic’ perspective eventually fail, and necessarily (d)evolve into a religious or ideological politics. People don’t fight and die and live their lives dedicated to pragmatism. Nobody is ever martyred for the cause of pragmatism, by definition: someone who is so ideologically committed to something he labels “pragmatism” that he is willing to die for it is no longer being pragmatic.

    Politics is the exercise of discriminatory power over life and death in human affairs, and such things literally cannot be ultimately based on utilitarian notions of what ‘works’ pragmatically.

  • […] 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 […]

  • Zombie Jerrybear says:

    Not every women wants to sleep with every confident, socially adept man every day.

    But every woman responds much better to a confident, socially adept man than to one who is not. Every. Single. Woman. Every one. When I charmed the Dean of Students out of throwing me out of my college, I didn’t get the notch, didn’t try, and in fact she didn’t even go for men. But I got what I wanted.

    I work with a very charming guy. He visits our office every month or so. All of the women looove this guy. None have slept with him and none will. But he makes them feel good. They get excited when he’s coming to town. It’s funny as hell. Game. Textbook stuff. It’s dynamite.

    That’s not all there is to getting laid. Some girls want the QB; some want the brooding introvert (ask me how I know). Some girls are with somebody new and still quite smitten; try again in six months. Some had a bad week. Some are late to an appointment, late to work, preoccupied, on the rag, or their cat is sick. Some, your shirt reminds them of somebody they don’t like.

    Some just aren’t that easy. But they still love being around a man with game.

    Game works on all women, but not always well enough to get them into bed. Hang out with a man who has game and you’ll be convinced. Don’t tell me the Earth is flat when I’ve seen the ocean.

  • Zippy says:

    Zombie Jerrybear:
    But every woman responds much better to a confident, socially adept man than to one who is not.

    Really? What a shocking revelation. Nobody ever knew that before Roissy came on the scene.

    My view on Game was summarized well by Proph in the other thread.

    But that is all rather wide of the point of the present post.

  • Mike T says:

    Really? What a shocking revelation. Nobody ever knew that before Roissy came on the scene.

    You wouldn’t know it from mainstream Christian advice to men.

    has the effect of corrupting that good and thus its practitioners or else turning people off to it who might otherwise benefit from it (i.e., wimpish men with absent fathers).

    That’s their loss. A fool who cannot discern the neutrality of the tool for the evil of the wielder is probably lost anyway.

  • Zippy says:

    The tools of Game to which it has unique claim aren’t generally neutral though.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    The tools of Game to which it has unique claim aren’t generally neutral though.

    Nailed it.

    I strongly dislike the characterization of the various “tools” as neutral. Sex (for example) isn’t neutral. Inside of marriage its good. Outside its bad. Its never neutral.

    Speaking of this: I keep forgetting to tell you that I think you misunderstood my use of the phrase “white magic” in that comment way back, and that was probably because I wasn’t careful enough to explain what I meant.

    I hope that clears everything up. Ha.

  • Scott says:

    I actually get depressed because of how few comments I let through. (Like 1 out of 50). How difficult is this to understand?– This site is for people who have ALREADY DECIDED that courtship is something they want to teach their children. If you think it is a bad idea, you are part of the VAST majority of people who prefer “dating” and your positions about how stupid and old fashioned courtship is are called “normative.”

    /end rant that has nothing to do with your original post.

  • […] of the reason that objectively understanding the math of getting lucky with Game (HT Aquinas Dad) is important is because many Christian men seem to have bought into the idea that […]

  • slumlord says:

    No idea, Zippy.

  • […] nerds what they changed about their behavior and thinking to reliably repeat those those endeavors. Zippy’s right on the math according to the numbers provided to him, but it’s not terrible helpful because those numbers […]

  • MarcusD says:

    But the difference between taking advice from submissive married homeschooling Christian women with broods of children about how to land and keep a good husband, and taking advice from prostitutes about how to use sex (as little as absolutely necessary) to get men to cough up resources (as much as possible), should be self evident enough.

    This doesn’t really answer my questions. Are you suggesting men and women do not have masculinity and femininity respectively?

  • pats says:

    Uh when has James A. Donald ever been uncivil?

  • Zippy says:

    MarcusD:
    Are you suggesting men and women do not have masculinity and femininity respectively?

    No, I’m suggesting some other out-of-the-blue nonsequiter.

  • MarcusD says:

    @Zippy

    Again, I’d appreciate it if you would answer my questions. Deflecting them doesn’t really allow me to understand your viewpoint better.

  • Zippy says:

    MarcusD:
    What questions did you ask, and did I not answer, that were pertinent to something I posted? I’m under the impression that I already answered everything subject-pertinent (not that I have a burning obligation to do even that).

  • jamesd127 says:

    Marcus D says that women should try to appear feminine, on which topic camwhores would probably have far better advice than clergymen, politically correct columnists, teachers, etc.

    You dismiss his argument without explanation. He requests an explanation.

  • […] shouldn’t take advice on how to be feminine from whores […]

  • […] garbage, four-leaf clovers…it’s all the same Game, isn’t […]

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

What’s this?

You are currently reading Mathematical illiteracy and Game at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: