#410 - Vincent Harinam - Why Is The Modern Dating Market A Mess?

It was a study conducted by four universities here in the UK, and it was found that for every 16-point increase for a man in IQ, his prospect of marriage increases by 35%. But for every 16-point increase in a woman's IQ, her prospect of marriage decreases by 40%. Vincent Haranam, welcome to the show. Chris, thanks for having me, buddy.

Really appreciate it. My pleasure, man. So your writing is some of the favorite stuff I've read on the internet over the last couple of years. You don't write regularly, but the stuff you put out is bomb.

However, what you do during the day, you're like a hyper-nerd by day, and then you write about social dynamics and trends and dating and culture and stuff. Talk to me about how those two things blend together. Okay, well, one correction there. I'm not a hyper-nerd.

I'm a hyper-geek. There's a slight difference between... No, no, don't apologize. It's like this typology that I created to separate geeks, dorks, and they're...

What's the difference? Okay, so I've come to the conclusion that in order to be one of these things, you have to have or don't have to have either intellectualism or functioning utility. So a geek is a person that is intellectual but also has a level of functioning utility. So a color, for example, does something which actually helps people.

But there's some intellectual rigor required there. A nerd has intellectualism but lacks functioning utility. So reading a book on 14th-century culture doesn't really help a lot of people. There's no societal benefit to that sort of thing.

And a dork has neither. Not a functioning utility nor intellectualism. All right, so that's the matrices that you put together that explains the, what would you say, the computerly inclined... Yes, and the poetically inclined.

Yeah, okay, okay, cool. All right, so talk to me. What's this marriage between these two worlds? Well, for me, all the articles that I write I do in my free time.

It's not something that I think about necessarily on a daily basis or I even do for my day job. So what I do is that I... Maybe I have an interesting idea or something that I want to pursue further. And then I accumulate as much data as I can.

And I apply the sort of research skills I have as a data scientist, the data analyst. And I try to take a complex idea and simplify it as much as I can. So papers on white privilege, sexual dynamics, same thing. These are all things I think people find interesting, but there isn't really any empirical rigor behind any of it.

And so my job, I think, as an intellectual, per se, or a person that does data analysis, is to try to break it down so that people understand it in a cogent way. This gets around the sort of armchair philosophizing excuse that a lot of people have with this, right? They just sit and throw cod psychology, bro science out there. I mean, like, this is me down to a T.

And yet you have somebody that can come in with some hard data and actually back that up or refute it. Yes, correct. The problem with cultural words, as I see, is that nothing is actually empirical. So they'll state that get, will, go, broke is a principle by which these companies operate under.

But in actuality, when I crunched the numbers, it wasn't the case. These companies weren't actually losing money if they engaged in incurable capitalism or if they pandered to the hard left. And I wonder how much of all these concepts that people espouse in the cultural words are true and how many of them need to be backtested or just tested in general. Yeah.

So you're able to stress test these with actual data because they sound, get what, go broke or whatever, sounds, I mean, it rhymes. Like, that's powerful. It's a meme. That's why it's so popular.

It's a damn meme. And if anything is meanified, it becomes popular. So something like Dogecoin, which has no basic fundamentals, is incredibly popular because it is a meme. It's a dog.

It's Doge. Well, yeah. OK, so get what, go broke is like Dogecoin, but for culture wars. Sure.

Yeah. We can say that. Yeah. OK.

We used to do the dark web as well, right? You've done investigations into that. Yes. You've done a bit of research, my friend.

I like it. Yeah. So my PhD thesis was on the dark web. So I looked at transactional networks on the dark web and tried to identify really how they operated, what the structural vulnerabilities were.

And then the idea was sort of to come up with a dossier of strategies that a lot of enforcement organizations could actually use to take these entities down. It makes complete sense going from dark web to learning about simping. It's just the perfect logical consistency between those two things. Correct.

So what did you learn about simping then? Well, that doesn't work. That is, if one wants to engage with women and get into a meaningful relationship, simping is not the way for it. Because you're basically, you're placating, right?

You're a pliable male that's trying to appeal to females, and you're not actually engaging with them on an emotional level. You're just giving them presents and undue compliments. And these women are essentially using you for your resources. Fundamentally, I don't really blame them, right?

If you throw a fastball down the middle of the plate, you're going to hit it. Are you not? So the same thing applies here, I guess. OK.

What's for the people that don't know the term? How would you describe what simp is? Well, a simp, so the etymology of the term actually goes back, I think, to the 1920s, but in modern parlance, simp is a term that is used to describe a man that is romantically hapless, right? He sort of gives presents and praise to women with the expectation of receiving some sort of sexual or emotional gratification, but receives none of it because he's pliable.

He doesn't actually bring anything to the table emotionally or really in terms of being a worthwhile partner to have. Yeah. And OnlyFans has basically monetized and weaponized this, right? Yes.

OnlyFans is the industrialization of simping. That's basically how I would define it. Look, it's a fantastic business model. If we were to look at it purely from the lens of a business perspective, it is excellent in what it does because it capitalizes on something which is endemic today in the sexual marketplace.

And that's emotional. That's an emotional connection that young men desire. Yes. And they, the asymmetry, the fact that most men fear rejection, that they struggle with finding a mate means that if they can pay to remove rejection, even if they know that the chance of genuine reciprocation is basically zero, most men are happy to pay that price.

Absolutely. Absolutely. They're more than happy to pay. And I think that probably speaks more about the nature of quality of men today than it does about anything else, that you would forego any sort of hardship for an easy win or an easy win in their mind.

It's like video games, right? They're not knocking anyone that necessarily plays video games, but the notion that the trophy that you'd win in a video game is tattered about or similar to winning a physical trophy in a sports competition are the same. It's nonsensical. And the same thing applies here in that you're foregoing rejection for what seems like emotional and emotional connection with a woman that you don't really know.

I see this in the personal development world as well. So a lot of people, if you look at LinkedIn profiles and that data analysis of LinkedIn profiles found that strategizing was one of the most used words in all, strategizing a strategy, most used words in all descriptions, and yet executing or executor wasn't even in the top 100. Reason for that being that it is significantly easier to strategize and execute because by always strategizing and never executing, you prevent yourself from potential failure by inoculating yourself from success. If I just speak rhetorically, there's no chance that I'm going to fail because in my world, in the world that I create of words, that never actually needs to come up against reality.

You're completely correct. I don't agree with that at all. No one has a plan. And it's not only having a plan, it's executing a plan.

We can talk as much as we want about things we want to do, a girl we like to talk to against a relationship of business we would like to start. But if you don't put one foot in front of the other and start marching forward and actually taking the necessary step towards achieving those things, you're never going to achieve it. Why do you think there is a current trend amongst men towards this easier route out, whether that being video games or in dating? It's a good question.

And it's a complex question, which means that the answer is probably multivariate in the sense that there's no simple answer, one variable which explains why it is that men are the way they are in this sense. It probably has to do with socialization, how men are socialized today, maybe coddling as well as social parenting strategies that they're used to raise young boys and rear them. It's a good question, but I would say those are probably the two things that I would probably point to, that we sort of read out the warrior aspect, the sort of frontiersman notion in men, right? That notion of going out there and getting afterwards has been read out of a lot of men.

And we're sort of afraid or hesitant to engage in things which make us uncomfortable. And I think David Dawkins, actually, who's a personal hero of mine, he talks about it in terms of suffering, that beyond suffering lies greatness. But in order to achieve greatness, you first have to suffer. And people are just terrified of discomfort and suffering, which, you know, they're scary things, yes, but if you want to be where you want to be, you're going to have to suffer, right?

You're going to have to pay the price. Not only is this happening on an individual level, but you've also got a cultural level of this with regards to the views around masculinity, men overall, what the definition of a man is. Yes, yes. That's a curious thing, actually.

I want to ask you about that, specifically how you would define what a man is or what it means to be a man. Okay, well, I'm going to go back to our mutual friend, Rob Henderson, because he recently posted a stat on one of his newsletters. And again, like this is, if anyone's playing fucking Rob Henderson, bingo, because they should be. I brought Rory Sutherland on the show, and he's one of the smartest behavioral economists on the planet.

And he said that he was in awe of Rob Henderson. So he said that there was three things that all men needed to do. And it was something like, always be in control, always show competence, and something else. I mean, the definitions around masculinity and what it means to be a man, you're trying to encapsulate a felt sense and an embodied sense, lexically, which is always going to be a mess, right?

Because the words are always going to be slightly imprecise. And because we're looking for generalizations here, people are always going to be able to point out aberrations of the generalization. But overall, I think I agree. I can't find a particular quote, but I think I agree.

It's to do with a competency, a control of oneself and one's own emotions, leadership from the front, taking responsibility. You know, these things, whether you're a man or a woman, masculine man or masculine woman, I think that anybody that embodies those traits, you would say, yeah, that's a fairly masculine way to be. I like that. And I completely agree with it.

So Jack Donovan, who is, I don't really know what you would call it. Maybe you've heard of him or read some of his books. He's a fascinating figure, I think, because he writes on masculinity and two books in particular that I've read of his, The Tribe and The Way of Men. And he states that masculinity is a combination of four things.

So you have honor, you have strength, you have courage, and you have mastery. And I like those. But in my mind, I have a tripartite model as well. So I would say that it's based around courage, which I think he's right.

So being afraid of doing something, but then doing it anyway. The second, which relates to something you said, is personal responsibility, verging on extreme ownership. And extreme ownership is a term that is used by Jocker Look. So taking control not only of the things within your world and your realm, but branching out and taking care of issues that are not necessarily a problem, but things that you must take care of.

And the final thing, I believe, is conquest. So having a goal, having an aim, wanting to put a dance in the universe. And then the through line between all of these three concepts is emotional control. So for me, the hallmark of masculinity is emotional control.

It doesn't matter how you feel when you get up in the morning, there's a job to be done, and you have to do it. Young guys stormed the beaches of Normandy, didn't cry in the corner, they went out a woman who had high emotional control, who had goals that she was going to go and get after, who was courageous and brave in chasing those things down. That would be, it would certainly be an outlier. It would be the sort of woman you would expect would be rising up through a law firm or starting her own business.

You know, that's, if you have boss bitch, like that's what would go next to it. Yes, yes. That's also fascinating as well, that we typically apply these characters to males more than we do females. And I think it has to do a lot with how we socialize and the sort of media we consume, in that we attribute these characters to strong men as opposed to strong women, which as you pointed out, women can and do have these qualities, but they're typically the very upper echelon of the fields.

So they dominate their dominance hierarchies, as Jordan Peterson would probably put it. Well, the reason being that disagreeableness, you know, to go down the Jordan Peterson right hole, disagreeableness and a bunch of other psychological traits will tend people in the males toward having this type of an approach to life. Yes, yes. So disagreeableness is a fascinating characteristic of the big five personality traits.

If one wanted to be a success in the field or reach the top of their dominance hierarchy, they would have to be low in agreeableness and high in disagreeableness because it's a matter of getting one's way and not being a pushover, being a monster in Jordan Peterson's fringiology. And a lot of that involves, I think, Peterson, he refers to Carl Jung. So Jung talks about integrating one's shadows, taking the negative or dangerous part of oneself and using it to one's own ends. And disagreeability is, I think, a large part of that.

Yeah. And I suppose that a lack of disagreeability is precisely what you're saying with Sims. Yes. Yes.

So to that point, disagreeability, when we talk about economics, one study demonstrated that if someone was, a man in particular, was one standard deviation below the level of agreeableness, they would earn 18% more than a man who was one standard deviation above the baseline agreeableness, which means that disagreeable people make more money than agreeable people. And also potentially get laid more or are more attractive to the opposite sex. However, I would say, and we can get into this, the converse would be untrue for women. But if you have a woman who is increasingly disagreeable, that she is probably going to be less attractive as a mate.

Yes. Yes. Because disagreeability, I think, is more of a masculine characteristic, at least based on the psychological evidence, the cognitive psychology would indicate that to be the case. And I think on average, on average, is a term probably going to be used.

Everything's on average. Everything's on average. Good God. But on average, men are more disagreeable, and they're typically looking for a woman that is feminine.

And if a woman, I would say, possesses a quality of disagreeableness, it probably makes more masculine than it does feminine. And I think that's what puts a lot of men off to disagreeable boss bitches, as you put it. Yeah. What's a dark gentleman?

Ah. So dark gentleman is a term I coined to reflect in a man who has both dark tried characteristics in some capacity, but is also benevolent. So he's not your psycho chad narcissist that wants to sleep with women, but he also incorporates the three Ps, that is parental investment, protection, and provision. So it's just what I like to call a unity of contradiction.

So combining two things which are in logical contrast, but molding them together such that they work in harmony. That's really interesting. So that's because there is a particular degree of attraction that women have toward dark tried traits. Why is that?

Yes. Those men are sexy. It's the characteristics that make these sorts of people seem as though they're important. There's that danger that is often attributed to a man that is psychopathic or machiavellian.

And with narcissism, it makes perfect sense. A guy that dresses well, smiles, is very attractive in other words. So he fulfills that chad component. But a man who is fully on the dark tried spectrum doesn't necessarily fulfill the dad perspective, which women are also looking for on a long-term perspective.

So if you're actually combining the short-term, which is the dark tried aspect of it, and the long-term perspective, which is the dad, the triple P perspective, you're getting the perfect guy, in a sense. You're getting that unicorn. Because you need an element, or most men with elements of dark tried traits are most successful in short-term mating opportunities, but make bad long-term mate prospects. So getting yourself through the door, so to speak, with the dark tried traits, and then continuing and adding longevity to the relationship with your three Ps, so the chad and dad.

Yes, precisely that. So I was actually having a conversation with Jordan Peterson about this, where you're saying that women want a man that is disagreeable, but also agreeable at the same time, because disagreeability is actually a law of diminishing returns, where if a man is disagreeable in his workplace, he's probably going to get an advance, as we discuss in terms of economics, they typically make more money. But in a domestic setting, a high-level disagreeability doesn't work very well. So if your wife tells you, hey, baby, go take out the trash, and you say, no, I don't want to do so, I'm disagreeable, it's probably not going to be conducive to a long and happy marriage.

But it's as with everything, man. You need a balance. Yes. You don't want to be out on the top 10th percentile or bottom 10th percentile of anything, ever, really.

Like I said, I tried to justify the number one competitive advantage in the modern world is to be 10% autistic over Thanksgiving dinner the other day. You just want, you just want, it's like, you know, that Salt Bae guy, you just want that much, you want that much autism, and it's, yeah, yeah, yeah, precisely. smattering you know i think there's i think there's some truth to that because you want to have that sort of gung-ho kind of fucking mentality where you kind of just go off and do your own thing and kind of just throw caution to the women you kind of have to dial it back in a sense you can't go you can't i'm gonna use a it's gonna get cancelled if i use it but it's sort of a tropic tropic thunder thunder term i think the phrase is the go full retard as it were yep that's fine i've used that last week on the podcast i'm talking about john peter uh so you've got a quote here from the article we're talking about a man who is too ingratiating is ultimately a man who is too desperate his inability to tell a woman no is a direct reflection of his over-eagonist to please contrary to popular belief telling a woman no in specific circumstances is an attractive quality as it signals that a man is not a pilot doormat yes yes you'd be surprised how sexy saying no is to a woman because you're sort of putting your foot down you're taking a stand you're saying i'm the man in the situation and a lot of women not all but i'm going to use the term on average you're looking for leadership within a relationship and sometimes that requires saying no and taking the bull by the horns and really taking the steering wheel and also making decisions right oh yeah oh yeah i mean look if you're in a relationship and you're constantly stressed and you're worried about life would it not be better if you had someone who was able to make decisions in a cogent manner and is able to lead you along it's not to say a woman incapable of making decisions or a man is more capable of making decisions but it's just it's just that less more or less less stressful when you have someone there that's clear thought and clear of mind and is able to make decisions yeah i mean what would you say to the people that say why why is that the man's job why can't that be the woman's job well it can be either one of their jobs right it sort of depends on the relationship i'm not i guess the point i'm trying to get across here is that it's not different relationships work differently for different people and so abiding by the stereotypical notion that men should always be the leader in a family i don't think it's true if it doesn't work for you and your partner so it may work it may be the case that it works for most people but some couples might find it easier if a woman makes all decisions financially socially whatever it is you do need a polarity though having two agreeable people or two disagreeable people is a recipe for a fuck up you always you always need a polarity between the two it's a good point you've raised here is that uh one one um sort of guy who's writing on this idea forget what who he is what the book was he said that for a good relationship to work specifically when it comes to sex is that you need a ravisher and a person that's ravished ravished and the same thing applies here in uh in a relationship right you need uh you need that that um polarity right that you need contradictions i'm not sure that i would agree with regards to the sex thing because what you see in gay circles is that the sexual protagonist and the sexual gatekeeper has had the gatekeeper removed and the gate the gate wide open um and they seem to have a lot of sex my buddies are gay when they go to cruising grounds and festivals and stuff like that they they come back and you know they've got an abacus to try and keep track of how many people have sex with sure but there's a subdom dynamic isn't there typically yes during the during the sexual dynamic um but certainly i mean the most interesting thing is for me especially recording and mating and getting from uh date to sex is the fact that women are almost always the sexual gatekeepers that men are almost always the sexual protagonists and um you may have seen rob tweeted something the other day talking about the percentage of women the percentage of men that prefer to be asked out on a date versus those that prefer to do the asking um and there is an asymmetry there there's like a whatever six to ten percent variance between the number of men that prefer to be asked out and the number of women that are prepared to be asking yes yes i completely agree with that it's i'm happy that rob has posted something about that because in my personal you know experience that has always been the case that i'm the one that always has to make the first move in initiating a date or getting a number whatever it is right because you know she's nice and she's out there in the corner talking to a friend but i'm gonna have to cross the road and ask her for a number but that's reflective of the dynamic that she holds the keys to the resource that mostly people trying to get which is sexual access but the dynamic gets reversed right that women hold the keys to sex but men hold the keys to relationships relationships correct correct i completely agree with that point and it harkens back to this notion or this idea that i've had is whether or not men are more powerful than women based on the fact that women hold the gatekeepers of the sexual marketplace as it were that men are after sex right and there's this economist that has this idea that everything men have done in terms of building is premised on receiving sex from females so you know you jump out of a plane uh you build a company you do it if you want to get laid maybe it's true maybe it's not but i think there's some merit to that because we're all we're all after reproduction right spreading our seed reproducing you know passing on our genes to the next generation and if that's the case well women are in essence powerful because they are as you say the gatekeepers of the sexual marketplace and they determine who gets to pass on their genes and who doesn't there's an episode of futurama where sex robots are distributed to everyone on the planet and nothing happens anymore everyone just stops working so yeah that's like this that's the situation you're talking about there's another quote that you put in here saying according to research 51 percent of men between the ages of 18 and 29 are single compared to 32 percent of women in the same age group uh how the fuck does that work because the gender split of men is around about 50 50 well it probably works because there's probably a small percentage of men or an outside portion of men probably a small percentage of men that are dating a lot of these women and when probably perceive that they're in a relationship with these men when in actuality he's probably dating a variety of different women and you know tied to that concept that 51 percent of men is notion that the reason why they're single is primarily because they're too afraid to ask one out and it goes back to that concept we're talking about rejection so uh guys using only fans it sort of takes away the thing of rejection yes what was that the ineffectiveness of simping lies in its pedestalization of women in the absence of genuine intimacy while the gentleman holds doors and pace for dinner and engages in women with women on an emotional level the simp inundates a woman with extravagant gifts and superficial praise the simp engages in romantic bribery attempting to buy a woman's loaf and that's just not gonna work no it doesn't because look i i don't believe that women are masters of they can see a mile away especially when it comes to romantic conquest and if a man is not genuine in his intentions and his courtship of her she's gonna spot that very very quickly how would a simp not be genuine well if it's always about giving undue praise and gifts well there's something wrong there right if there isn't any pure emotional interaction if there isn't any need to engage her beyond simply giving her praise and attention well he's not really gonna get through the front door is he uh so there's an underwritten expected reciprocation which isn't being adhered to yes and there's sort of this cat mouse game that you could probably play with a girl you're trying to court right i think that the push and pull process is what it's referred to and if if all you're doing is giving attention to a female your attention is worthless it's like getting too much of something makes it makes it essentially worthless so you know i don't know your favorite food is but let's say you love pizza if you have pizza every single day it no longer becomes your favorite food because you're eating it on a daily basis and it loses its luster over time and the same thing applies with attention in this case here where the value of a man's attention is lost if it's constant the number of men aged 18 to 30 who report having no sex in the past year has tripled between 2008 and 2018 so this is pre-pandemic and i imagine it must have gotten an awful lot worse through the pandemic as well why do you think this is happening it was probably higher than 31% or whatever it was when it was reported because that's not something that a lot of men would actually report to people it's stigmatized the male version is something to stigmatize in society but i think the reason why this is is again it's a complex question which probably has a multivariate answer yeah so it could be the case that it's men being pushed out of the sexual marketplace because women are typically looking for a guy at uh at the you know the 90 percentile at the power view as it were at the end of the power law distribution uh that could be a potential reason so they're not finding women that are necessarily interested in them because they are let's say average right socioeconomically speaking it could be the case that they've actually dropped out of the sexual marketplace so excessive use of pornography playing video games not putting themselves in a situation in which they can court women and actually engage with them that is probably another reason why but i think that's that's interesting so i think you know black pill intel culture red pill kevin samuels fans everyone wants to blame the lack of sex or the vast majority of people want to and the lack of sex on a women's standards being too high or at least for the people who aren't familiar with this corner of the internet that's a big explanation but the fact that some men have chosen to retreat from dating because there's simply other more fun things to do you know it's not just about the black pills that can't and the red pills that won't it's the mid-tows that choose not to yes men that go their own way absolutely correct and look a lot of this comes down to effort if you actually want to have a girlfriend and actually have a meaningful relationship with a girl you're gonna have to try you're gonna have to put yourself out there and you're gonna have to suffer rejection rejection i think is a large part about um it really is a masculine feature so dealing with rejection of course females as well can deal with rejection but dealing with rejection and handling is how you build a backbone it's how you develop thick skin and the more times you suffer rejection in you know when it comes to dating courtship the better you are at it why do you think we are so terrified of rejection as men hey suffering no one likes to feel as though they're inadequate and john james actually again going back to him he has this fantastic line about when a man suffers rejection when he's that woman says no to me so he's essentially saying that she doesn't want to reproduce with you and uh carry on your genetic line it's a fundamental shot to the ego and nobody wants that but you know again if you do want to actually achieve that right to spread your uh your genes as it were you're gonna have to take hits do you think that women feel the same pain of rejection just that they ask less frequently than men and that they will passively get they are uh how do you say they're getting passive traffic uh and men are having to create active adverts uh to use the online marketing yes good good uh terms here how many girls have actively asked you up it's in dude over 15 years of being out and about a night's out i can remember most of them i'm talking single digits yes it's like maybe two it's not that much right and so women are taking the you know the the active effort to engage with a man asking for a number and so therefore they don't suffer as much rejection but when they do suffer the rejection i can imagine that it's pretty damn painful because it's not in your nature let's say to actually put yourself out there and initiate the conversation or initiate the engagement oh so you've already overcome something you've already decided to make an increased effort on top of what you think should be done this is outside my normal operating schedule and it still hasn't worked but if there's i want to hear the girls that are listening put a comment on youtube or whatever and tell us what you think because if let us know what the pain of rejection is like uh whether or not whether or not you think it's as bad as your male counterparts yes i would love to see the other comments yeah well we need you to do a data dive on it um yeah it's a weird one man do you not think is there something deeper than that is a what would it be evolutionarily why would it be the case that a woman saying no is so painful is it that there is a limited number of women and that this is a reminder of your place in the status hierarchy within the tribe of the hundred people that you know and of those hundred people maybe four of them are available women that are of the right age for you yes it's a it's probably a mark of inadequacy so being told no that one cannot reproduce is is very painful and evolutionary speaking uh most of we have more female ancestors which indicates that a small percentage of men in antiquity in ancient times actually reproduced and so this is a good thing and a bad thing in a way it's bad obviously because a lot of men are dying without reproducing but it's probably a good thing in a sense because women are selecting the best possible mates and so it sort of it improves our genetic line when all the top stock males are selected verging terrifyingly close to people posting eugenics in the comments below here vincent which is i agree with you i agree with you the fact that selection pressures from women choosing things which are outward displays of fitness charisma all of the reasons why is it that you think that the things that you find attractive you find attractive why for everything my favorite example of this right um the preferred body size of women over time is fluctuated you've gone from bigger women you know marilyn monroe wasn't a thin famous actress uh right up to the thigh gap desire of sort of the early 2000s to now kind of the more like fit chick insta bum bbl shit that you've got now however throughout all the time the preferred waist to hip ratio of women has remained the same it's always been around 0.82 why because women that have a higher waist to hip ratio on average are more fertile the same thing as large eyes flushed lips uh rosy cheeks because those are signs of youth youth also equals fertility with men the v-taker is precisely the preferred body size for men over time has changed but an increase in width an increase in jaw size an increase in brow ridge are all signals of high testosterone testosterone equals more status more resources more go-getter probably uh more disagreeable i would imagine that men who have higher levels of testosterone are more disagreeable as well so like all of the things that we happen to like even symmetrical faces it's genetically more difficult to grow a symmetrical face than an unsymmetrical face and then you have a sexy son hypothesis if i'm attracted to this man my children will be attracted therefore our genetic lineage will continue more easily um all these things the reason you're attracted to the things you're attracted to is mostly because they are signals of fitness and realizing realizing that i had a robert ploman on the show behavioral uh geneticist and people get real uncomfortable talking about behavioral genetics because it it reminds them of eugenics in a way that it absolutely shouldn't um and the only person that you should complain about if you are throwing the eugenics term around at a behavioral geneticist is why aren't you dating that homeless four foot four jobless man on the street that doesn't watch like why are you all the guy why aren't you dating that girl that you can't better look at and he's super annoying and super disagreeable why that's that's eugenics as well yes yes well that was a fantastic summary of the literature that was great i really like that but basically what this comes down to is ancient ideas and modern souls so a lot of what we do at the level of of course there are increasing between people we like what we like for a variety of reasons and maybe social so there's that notion that we marry people like our parents but even still that's a combination of of um biological determinism and um social rearing but at the same time the evolutionary lens here is incredibly important that a lot of what we find attractive as you pointed out youth and fertility when it comes to men and their main preferences is something which is borne out in the in evolution right this is these are things which we look for um men in looking for women and on for females the same sort of thing applies with as you mentioned the bee taper with men having certain physical characteristics which made them more of a protector and more of a provider women are typically going to in antiquity as well as today put their their interest or their their lot behind a man who's capable of taking care of them and that was especially the case in in evolutionary in an evolutionary age of 18 times but it's also carried off over today what are some of the unique challenges that we've got with modern mate selection well the primary problem and i do think that it is verging into a very very very serious issue is the imbalance in the sexual marketplace where there is a presumably a small percentage of men who are receiving the most attention from women that women want men in the upper echelon socioeconomically speaking right they want a man that earns top 10 percent in terms of income that has square jawline that has a six-pack you know is in the top 10 in terms of height as well and these characteristics when put together equate for a very small percentage of men and if the majority of women are vying for these men and ignoring the rest of them that creates not only a large number of lonely women but it creates a lot of sexually frustrated men and those two things are not are not necessarily or not even very good if we're looking at a prosperous society why is that a modern phenomenon surely these impulses have been with us throughout time so the impulses yes the one impulse being hypergamy so women dating upwards is something which has been ingrained and constant throughout human existence but i think the three things which have changed at least in the last 50 years are one female achievement so women are typically earning more than men at a certain age bracket and they're going to college at a higher rate so just to give you an example of statistics so in the 1960s there were 1.6 men to every female at a four-year u.s college by 2003 there were 1.35 women for every man in a four-year u.s college and women are going to college and earning degrees at a higher rate than men and this also applies to postgraduate degrees where something like 12 percent of women have a postgraduate degree relatively of men and when it comes to the economics as well these The Press Association compiled a lot of data looking at economics, earnings, and what they found was that women between the ages of 20 and 29 made, on average, 1,111 pounds more than a man in that same age. So that's one point, the one factor being improved female attainment.

The second factor is that there's a greater variability among males, and this is with regard to economic earnings and such, right, all the characteristics that you would look for in a viable partner, that there is a wider distribution of men economically, so making more money, maintaining more sexual partners. And so this variability is, of course, going to play to that top 10% of men. And the third thing is, I think this is an important one because it's probably with regard or with relation to technology, so an expansion or globalization of a sexual marketplace and the collapse of local status hierarchies, where things like Instagram, things like Tinder, are making it such that there's an international pool of partners with which you can select from, that you couldn't have before. So 50 years ago, you probably meet someone, a romantic prospect, in a bar, a local bar, or a rec center, or whatever.

Certainly my parents met locally, right? They were maybe from different villages or something, but it was a local phenomenon. But today, everything is international, everything is globalized. And all these characteristics together, along with hypergamy, has resulted in this massive imbalance.

How is it, if there's women out educating and out-earning men between the ages of 20 and 29, how is it that there's still a comedy-held assumption in the culture about men out-earning women, about women being held back? Do you want the sort of do-do-do answer? Both. Give me all of them.

Well, the do-do answer is that people are dumb and uninformed, and they typically go along with news and messages. That's a joke, by the way. I don't think people are dumb. I think it's a matter of just the amount of information that's being presented and how it's being presented.

Because if members of the media are just presenting that narrative over and over again, it's going to stick, right? We're just playing off the characteristics here. I think that's the main thing. That's the reason why this narrative sticks, this notion of gender pay gap is sticking around despite the copious amounts of research done about it.

The fact that if you actually disaggregate the data, if you look at hours of work, if you look at industry, if you look at job type occupation, these sorts of things, you see that there's a reason why it is that men, on average, make more than women. Not to mention the fact that women between the ages of 20 and 29 make more money than men within that age. What happens at age 29 is after that, it's probably motherhood. So it's not even a question of men and women making more or less than the other.

It's a question of everyone else making more than mothers. The interesting thing to me, I've been thinking about this for so long, is the presumption amongst common culture and people that put forward the idea about the gender wage gap is that the inherently masculine frame is the attainable, admirable, preferable one that everybody should be playing on. It's like the values that we typically associated with men or with masculinity or with men's trajectory through life is the one. Those are the rules of the game that everybody should be playing by.

And now we need to kind of manipulate it so that everyone gets to play that game. Does that make sense? Yeah, sort of. Well, think about the fact that there are a lot of women out there who might want to wipe the floor with men and get their postgraduate degree and earn a grand and a bit more per year throughout all of their 20s, but can't wait to become mothers and don't actually mind about the fact that they get to become mothers.

And yet, the woman that decides to do that is seen through this particular lens as lesser because she's decided to play the game that isn't the typical masculinity approach. Well, why haven't you only taken your three months maternity leave? Because, you know, I think it's in Australia, you kind of have like this big block of time and you can repurpose it between the man and the woman across both jobs. I don't really know how that works because the two companies are going to be different.

But anyway, yeah, why is it that you're not going straight back to work? That, to me, I must imagine for women that really can't wait to be mothers must provide a level of ambient anxiety and maybe even guilt around the fact that they have decided to either be a mother or go back to work when they should feel like they're doing the opposite. That probably has to do quite a bit with societal pressure. So, you know, women needing to work or not even societal pressure, but just an economic pressure.

Yes. So the fact that both adults in the household need to work in order to provide for everyone else is a clear factor here. But to your point, that is also an interesting thing where it is assumed that a woman should go off and get a job and do all those sorts of things. But what if she doesn't want to?

Right. All this comes down to personal choice. If you want to work and achieve a PhD and be a captain of industry as a woman, you're free to do so. Do it.

But if you decide that at the age of 21 or even at the age of 18 before you even go to a college that you want to be a mother, you can do that also. I don't see the problem with it. The issue is that people have to understand that there are consequences and benefits to doing certain things. And we all have to live with it.

You can't simply do something and then complain about the action or the results of the action. Rolling the clock forward then, you can only have long term, realistically, you would expect women to adjust their dating strategies in order to be able to find themselves a mate. But based on the stats, it doesn't really seem like that's bearing out. No, no, that's correct.

And I think this probably comes down to hypergamy as well. Is that women won't settle? Well, the average woman probably won't settle. She'll probably go after the type of man that she wants.

And if she doesn't get him, she's more than happy to be single. She's more than happy to work on her career and do what she needs to do. Which is, again, perfectly fine. You do what you want to do.

You do what you need to do. But it obviously becomes an issue when there is a lot of men out there without a partner, without a person that is there for them. And societies where young men are without partners are ones that typically become stabilized and crumble within a short period of time, a short span of time. What's an example of that?

So I think in antiquity as well, I'm trying to remember the nation society that had this particular issue. But certainly it's the case that when young men authorize and when they don't necessarily have a productive means of actually conforming or treating themselves, they will typically tear society apart. I mean, everybody knows the dynamics you're talking about. Everybody knows the guy friend who is a complete savage and doesn't really care about who he goes home with after he's had a couple of drinks.

We all have that buddy at university. Not many of us had that girl buddy at university, or far less so, right? Yeah, I don't know. It strikes me as a particularly sort of unfortunate combination of circumstances.

Another one being that if you have more lax rules around casual sex before marriage and birth control, which means that you can have sex without fear of having children, that means that women can have sex with high value men who are outside of their typical dating pool and perhaps higher value than they would usually have access to, which then skews their goals moving forward about who they want to be in a long-term relationship with. What they don't understand is that that man was prepared to give them sex, but not prepared to give them a relationship. Yeah. Yes, yes.

That's an incredibly important point here. It's a matter of knowing what's available and what you can actually attain, being realistic about your romantic prospects. So that high value man that is a top 10% earner that drives a Bugatti was probably never going to entertain a romantic relationship with you. So why try to court him at the outset?

What was the benefit there? Maybe it was a fun night and maybe you do enjoy engaging with him, but you are right when you say that it probably distorts their perception of what then is available. Because if you do have this experience with this guy and it was a fantastic experience and you head over heels for him, you want to replicate that experience in the next other relationship you have. But if that guy that you're dating doesn't quite reach that standard, you're never going to be happy.

Well, which girl wants to admit to herself that this guy with the nice car and the good abs only wants me to fuck me? No one wants, no girl's going to be able to do that. Not only would you probably not know, but even if you didn't know, you wouldn't be a really ugly girl, he'll probably justify it to himself as, well, actually, she's not that bad. No, dude, it's because you've had eight pints and you're in a city that you've never been in before and you're lonely.

That's why. Yes, yes, yes. So, yes, correct. I don't know, man, I think it'd be very difficult for a girl to kind of concede that point.

You know, one of the main reasons would be men give off signals of long-term mating strategies. Very few men, you know, no matter how old you are, are going to say, I hope you've got your Uber booked for 3.30 a.m. tonight type thing as you're on the way back. Or, hi, mate, can you just wait outside in the cab while we get this done and then you can take her home?

Most men aren't honest and open about their short-term mating intentions, which let's lean women on. Yes, I think that is true, but at the same time, does being open make a man more or less attractive with regard to his intentions? So, if you met a girl right away and you took her out on a first date or maybe even a second date and you said to her, my intention is to marry you, does that make you more or less attractive if you were that transparent? Then what do you think?

Maybe. I would say that's probably coming on too strong. That's probably not too strong. Right.

So, that's where transparency may not necessarily work in that particular situation. Well, the most bizarre thing is that the men who have no intention of being in a long-term relationship with you usually give off signals that they do, and the men who do want to be in a long-term relationship with you try to give off signals that they're not. Yes, but that's the thing, though, is that it's a strange way that I suppose the female mind perceives attractive males, and it probably comes back to the point about attention, is that you want that which you cannot have. And if you can't have the man that is the upper-exual and the high-value man, you'll want to be even more.

Roll a call for me, then. There's going to be a lot of single women in the future. What's going to happen there? Because do you think that women can reset their hypergamous nature?

No. No, that's an evolutionary fixture that's going to stick around for quite a while. Things are probably going to get far worse than they are better before everything is said and done. What does that mean?

Well, it means I think we're probably going to see a lot more violence with relation to incels. I think that's probably going to go up as a result of the influx of lonely single men. And, of course, you're going to see quite a bit more depression among single women. In fact, I think there's a statistic out there that indicates that Caucasian females between the ages of 40 and 45 have the highest rates of antidepressant use.

And that is probably going to increase as time goes on, but probably spread out to other age demographics. 40 and 45? I believe so. So do you think that that's women who have perhaps not dated or dated unsuccessfully and made it to the wall without a partner and are now accepting their sort of childless future?

Yes, I think so. But there is a saving grace. So if I were to add a contradictory statistic here, it's that the only demographic among females where there's been an increase in infertility and children being born is that same demographic. It's women between the ages of 40 and 45.

I want to say that more women in 2019 had children over the age of 40 than under the age of 20. Correct. Correct. That's exactly correct.

I think peer research actually put out a study not too long ago. 2016 was 80% of women between the age of 40 and 45 that had a child. And that actually increased by 6% as of 2019. That's crazy.

Yes, fully taking upwards. And to be honest, the average age of women having children increasing is probably due to the fact that we're having less children, not quite children out of wedlock, but children born to teenage parents, let's say, teenage women. Is that happening? Yes.

Yeah. So it's not the case that children are not being born out of wedlock. That is actually going off. And it's quite a substantial amount.

But safe sex practices, that sort of thing, has been instrumental in reducing the rate of teenage pregnancy. I read in The Moral Animal by Robert Wright about how monogamy is a sexual redistribution strategy. Oh, yeah? Yeah.

So this really fascinated me. The fact that if you have one man with many women, you allow one particular man to capture most of the market. Whereas if you have one man with one woman, you actually end up allowing man number two to get woman number two. Whereas previously, he would have been looking at woman number 11 because women 1 to 10 would have been with man number one.

And that kind of explains, I think, some of the resentment that you see in the black culture and in the incel culture around these chads, these high-value men that are able to speak with many women because they see them as tying up available women's reproduction potential during fertile years when they could have been dating other people. And also, how would you say, kind of bunching up the line, moving the queue tighter and tighter together in a way which has trickle-down effects that has potentially competed them out of the dating market. Absolutely. So these black hole guys, as the name goes, they hate Chad and Stacey.

And it's funny you mention that because you are correct. And the researcher, I forget the name that you mentioned. Robert Wright is the book. Robert Wright.

Yes, entirely correct, I think, in that monogamy in the grand scheme of things is probably a newer concept, a newer thing that's come about. It was never the case in antiquity that we engaged in monogamy. It was typically polygamous, but we had harms and such. And I do think that there's an argument to be made about returning to that, specifically when we talk about imbalances in the sexual marketplace with a small percentage of men hogging a large percentage of women.

So if we look at Tinder data, for example, most of the men on Tinder, of the profiles they come across, females, they'll swipe right on 60% of them. When it comes to females, they'll only swipe right on 4.5% of them. So that is a massive imbalance just on Twitter usage. And that is even compounded by the fact that 78% of individuals that use Tinder are male.

And so 22% of people that use Tinder are female, which means of the demographic, of the smallest demographic in terms of gender, the vast majority of these women are being selected by the vast majority of men. And the opposite is not true for females. Dude, I've just realized the implication of what you're saying. And I've never thought of this before.

I think about this shit a lot, right? I've read everything that you've read. I've read a lot of stuff around red pill and black pill. And I've only just realized that one of the potential solutions to this is to go back to a polygamous culture.

Because if women can't get rid of their hypergamous nature, if we can't raise men's level of competition up in order to be able to match the women, one of the solutions to make fewer people overall be single is to have many women with one man at the top and then just leave the men at the bottom to be cast away. That's fucking terrifying. That's terrifying. And it's not what we want to do.

That is a recipe for disaster. That is a recipe for social people and just societal disintegration if men are simply cast aside because they're inadequate. Fuck. But that's the case at the moment.

That's the case at the moment with it being non-polygamous. Non-polygamous, correct. So imagine a society like China where there is a massive gender imbalance based off of the one-shot policy that they initiated centuries back. And now looking at the modern sexual dynamics, what do you think is going to come out of that society in 50 to 100 years if all this, if our hypotheses here are correct and this plays its course?

Do you think that you're talking about if you have one man with many women? Yes. So in essence, as we just pointed out, it's that polygamous setup where it's one man with many women and the rest of these men who are incapable of attaining a sexual partner are being left in the dust. But the only thing that they have to bind together over is their mutual hatred of Chad and Stacey.

Of Chad and Stacey. Yes. Fuck, man. So I never thought of the fact that a potential solution, and I'm going to guess there'll be a utilitarian rationalist out there who would say that this is actually an optimal outcome as long as you can control this underclass of sexless men, that you actually end up reducing the number of people overall that are single by doing this.

But you very, very much create a bifurcated society. You have the haves and the have-nots. And the Matthew Principle comes out with this as well. As an example, I think Robert Wright explains, I care about it, it was in 1994, he wrote this book, it's so pressing, it's amazing.

But at the time, maybe the richest man was like Warren Buffett or something. It's like a really unsexy example. And he talks about the fact that you could have the richest man in the world that's worth however many billion, and he could fund the lives using money as a proxy for resources, which is one of the fundamental things that women want from a man. He would be able to fund like 10,000 women's lives, the same as one millionaire.

Yes. And when you think about that, well, okay, obviously women want more than just monetary access. They actually want emotional connection. They want to be able to feel like they're part of a working capacity, family, and so on and so forth.

But when you think about it like that, and if the choice is between being completely single as a woman as you get into your 30- or being one of many with a man who you know can look after you because he's one of these super earners with all of the resources and all of the status I don't know I don't know how tempting that ends up sounding incredibly tempting I would assume because it's the prospect of being funded pretty much winning the lottery ticket when it comes to these warm market types and having to raise children with a man that you're not necessarily attracted to or even happy with that doesn't necessarily provide the sort of life that you want well the third option is to continue leading a solo range of life and I think that the from a utilitarian perspective why isn't everyone in a relationship with Elon Musk I should be in a relationship with Elon Musk based on utilitarian approach that was the aftershock of the renaissance as Rollo Tomasi founder of the Red Hill calls it the one-itis the belief that there is one true love and this was very much pushed through the renaissance and anything about popular recent culture you've got Disney movies like Aladdin that really really just fundamentally create this there is someone out there that is perfectly built for you and you will spend the rest of your life together yes so I have a bone to pick with Disney because I think the disnification of romantic relationships is incredibly dangerous so are you your parents still together yes so our grandparents and our parents they typically have lower rates of divorce because the basis of the relationship was not necessarily based on their happiness per se it was more so getting things done and ensuring that these children were raised in a correct manner and that often meant putting up with the opposite sex putting up with your partner despite the fact that they're behaving like a dickhead on that specific day today things I think are different because again it's that disnification of romantic relationships where if it's not perfect if it's not a fairytale I don't want it and so it is subject to divorce and it again goes back to that concept of suffering and hardship and rejection how good was the relationship to begin with if once you hit a rough patch you immediately give up I think that you see this as well with the increasing masculinization or the masculine frame that women are being encouraged to take to you know don't settle for less clap back be a boss bitch I know that these are all kind of funny Twitter memes but they permeate phenomenologically they're in the back of someone's mind they're in the back of a girl's mind the fact that he doesn't deserve you babe all of that sort of stuff is averse to working through challenges with a man who is on a par with your sexual marketplace value and the same thing goes for the guys it's like playing more fish in the sea get over your last girlfriend by getting under the next one you know there are men and beings on both sides of the fence here now they're being played in different ways the men are being reminded to reinforce their masculine traits and the women are being reminded that a protectionist strategy is to adopt masculine traits but again what we're seeing I need to I need to ring Rob for like three hours and talk you through but there is a masculine frame a masculine preference which is being it's like when you varnish a table and it's just like a smattering across everything or it's like the direction that the wind is pushing whether that be how you're supposed to spend your relationships how you're supposed to think about education how you're supposed to think about your career all of these things they really do seem to be pushing in that direction but with the women's side of things yeah they're being encouraged to not accept a not a subpar mate but a difficult situation with a equitable mate yes yes it's a problem obviously you're making the point here about ideas and memes and it's not just a meme it's a mode of thinking that is being inculcated by young women and also young men to an extent and it's incredibly problematic that this notion that one must not necessarily settle it's fine I don't think you should ever settle but it's more so that you should be very realistic about what it is that's attainable and what it is that's out there and life is unfair and you're not always going to get what you want and you're just going to have to deal with it and if more people if more people were to come to that realization that they would just have to get on with things and just accept them as to how they are well it'd be a lot simpler wouldn't it what do you mean by that? well if one if the average female out there who's after Big Alpha Chat realizes that she can't actually attain Big Alpha Chat and she may in fact have to go with Stormy Norman as an example Joey Bagadonis she'd have a romantic partner but it's that notion of settling being the boss bitch which comes into conflict with it that what she's told and what she may necessarily need are two different things so there's such a tough pill to Solomon and increasingly as I've spent more time with this I do feel for women as well it's easy I think in this situation when we're talking about stuff like this men are the obvious victims of this because they're not the ones that are choosing to not be in relationships they're often on average they're the ones that are being overlooked for being in relationships but the experience isn't that much better for women either women didn't choose to have a hypergamous nature they didn't choose to fundamentally find attraction in men who are across and above their dominant hierarchy and as you put it in one of your articles it's very difficult to open across a dominant hierarchy if you stand atop your own and as women begin to rise up through theirs as they become better educated they become richer they have more status and you now have a culture which is encouraging women to value that I mean you talk about another set of stats you had was there's a 50% increase in the use of erectile dysfunction medication amongst men who are in relationship with women who out earn them who make more money yes correct so you have all of these dynamics that are bearing up that's got sweet foe call to do with culture that is exclusively physiological right what is the function that's occurring that causes a man losing relationship where his wife out earns him to need to use erectile dysfunction medication you have significantly higher rates of divorce I've thought about that and the answer again is a difficult one because it could be one of two things so the first thing could be that he probably feels inadequate he doesn't feel as though he's leading a relationship and so he's sort of put in a position where because he's not the primary breadwinner he's sort of a there's a reduction in serotonin for example and he just feels inadequate and so that translates to his ability to actually perform in the bedroom but it could also be a reverse causality thing where his inability to actually make money in the first place actually contributes that's a selection effect yes yes so it could be the case that he was actually unable to make money for a variety of reasons maybe he was just completely agreeable and so you know that probably relates to his inability to actually get it up so he wasn't actually it wasn't the case that he was predisposed to get it up in the first place because of the variety of characteristics inherent to him wasn't there a stat around is it 30% of women said that they wouldn't get into a relationship with a man that doesn't have a job or was it the 30% that said that it was a man that wouldn't earn more than that I can't remember so there are a number of statistics here so these studies go back to 1939 where they found that women were twice as likely as men to want a partner that made more than them or made a significant amount of money and this sort of finding has been replicated in studies in the 1940s 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and I think the study that you're referring to specifically was that they maybe it was Pew Pew put out a study that said that 78% of women would not date a partner or not get with a prospective mate that did not make more than dated and only 48% of men shared that view fuck man and you don't have no sorry go ahead you have an ever increasing group of high performing women competing for an ever decreasing group of ultra high performing men and the choice is the analogy that I always use is it's the same as being the tall girlfriend now if you're a 6 foot 1 without heels on woman you're looking at professional athletes because on average women want to date a man that is about 21 cm taller than her yes that's another statistic poll there interestingly men prefer to date a woman that's I think 16 cm or 12 cm shorter than him so even in that and this is such a perfect example women want to date a man on average it's 21 cm taller men on average want to date a woman that is 16 cm shorter in that we have a disparity we have the preference of a man and the preference of a woman both moving in opposite directions but not marrying up yes yes so the missing point here is not just the preference of a woman because from the conversation we're having we're discussing female male preferences but what's lost here are male male preferences what they're looking for in a prospective mate so we talk about I haven't even spoken about that yeah men don't matter but even looking at what men desire in a partner there's that notion that there's a new 18 year old every day and so these women that are achieving quite a bit economically speaking educationally speaking are going to be on average much older than women just entering the gloom of their life so they're competing against women who are on average more attractive or more attractive to males because if it is the case that men are attracted to youth and fertility you're down you're behind the 8th ball if you are 35 with a PhD competing against an 18 year old an 18 year old that is just doesn't have that much life experience but is quite attractive to a works at Starbucks but she's fertile as fuck exactly exactly it's a tough sell it's a horribly unfair dynamic the 8th symmetries go all the way down man I mean you said so here's another thing that some of the girls that are listening may have realized if being smart and rich and high status is negatively correlated with men being attracted to you and with success in relationships that may lead some women to signal that they are less smart and less educated and less wealthy than they are and I think that you found a study that showed women under-reporting their education level in certain circumstances when around men this is correct so this is referencing I believe a Harvard business school study so looking at declarations of personal success or wanting to become something later on down the line and when it was the case that women could confidentially report their ambitions they would do so honestly but when it was known that people would actually realize or recognize them they would actually tamp down their ambitions so as to not make it seem as though they were ambitious and it logically links the fact that they'd be less attractive to a man because she was a boss-bitch career woman It's a John Peterson-ism to say is it for every standard deviation that a woman goes above the normal IQ point that she's 30% less likely to get married? I can state the exact statistic so there was a study conducted by four universities here in the UK and it was found that for every 16-point increase for a man in IQ his prospect of marriage increases by 35% but for every 16-point increase in a woman's IQ her prospect of marriage decreases by 40% What do you do about that? What do you do about that statistic?

I don't really do anything about it again it's all of what we're discussing here are just inherent facts of the human condition about dating, sexual dynamics and all this is premised on evolutionary precepts and I don't think there's anything you can do about it I don't think there's anything you can do about it as sad as that sounds unless you want to settle because it's almost like if you're a female and you feel for young girls particularly if I have a daughter in the future I definitely would feel for her because you have ambitions and you want to be something you want to be someone you want to achieve all these things and make quite a bit of money good for you you should aim for that sort of thing but it comes with the consequence of knowing that men that you are looking to get with in a long-term relationship aren't interested in those things and you're not going to be attractive it's a difficult thing that competence in many domains is not something which is seen as attractive by the sex you're trying to attract as a woman and also actually can be detrimental that you being competent working hard to get a job to grow a career to get status to earn money to become educated all these things are actually making it more difficult for you to do it and on top of that they use up the single most important resource and the most attractive quality you have which is time and you're you you spend your 20s getting educated building up your career and earning money to find out that men don't care about your education level your career or your wealth and now you're older than some women who you're now trying to compete with that's it's not kicking balls it's a kick in there's something else about it's a punch in the tits it's a punch in the tits it's a punch in the tits you're correct fuck man this entire subject area fascinates me because of how uncomfortable it is you know we are bound by our evolutionary precepts as you call them to just and the final thing as well is like the fundamental choice that you have left as a woman is to as most women on average if this hypergamous nature ends up continuing and if the how would you say the over success of women continues to accelerate is you have two choices as far as I can see one of them is to move through life and be single and the other one is to settle with a mate that you are fundamentally unattracted to neither of those seem like particularly good situations the only advantage that women have over men in this you know average value women and average value men the only advantage that the women have is the fact that they can settle and the men don't even have that opportunity it's tough to swallow but the worst part about it is that it's not that it's a reality and it will most likely move to being more palatable as time goes on at least that's my contention what do you mean it's the fact well it's in a sense that the worst part about it is that we don't know about it that's the worst part about it is that it's sitting the shark in the water it's jaws this is a creeping disaster that is on the frontier that no one is particularly informed about and the whole point of this article or this set of articles was to ring an alarm bell to say that this is definitely an issue that we need to be taking a very close look at because it's not just that it's an issue that can be that is that damages an economy for example it's an issue that damages society and long term civilization yeah civilization ending one potential remedy so I know that we can't reprogram our sexual desires I know that hypergamy is going to stick about I know that it's going to be so unpalatable as to make it a moot point to suggest that women should either be held back or should choose to hold themselves back from achievement because it's negatively correlated with make success of child rearing and of sort of more traditional like conservative values because that means that nobody loses out but everybody now places the value of having a family so high that both men and women begin to work together collaboratively you're not referring to enforced monogamy by any chance are you? I'm not referring to enforced monogamy because Jordan nearly got cancelled for that that's a cancelled offence my friend correct yes to take your point seriously you are entirely correct is that having conversations with people about this particular topic about what is the solution that is the solution that is often presented a reinvigoration of marriage and maybe we don't use the term enforced monogamy but taking marriage seriously instead of that you would be able to say not enticed monogamy is admiration and desire and social renown you know if it's now the cool thing to have a family to have a secure life to you know the two dogs two kids white picket fence shit then you don't need to mandate shit people are just going to do it because they want to do it because other people want to do it yes if that is what is desired by most people or perceived to be desired by most people it's likely the case that everyone else is probably going to want it this is a nemetical desire 101 this is René Girard in a nutshell but that has to do with cultural mores and perceptions and beliefs within society what it is that we prioritize and it seems at this point in time that we don't necessarily prioritize having a stable and healthy relationship having a stable and healthy marriage raising children and having to deal with the relationship that come with being a part of a family and being a part of a healthy marriage I mean I'll talk to friends about this and they'll say to me I don't want to stay up you know change diapers or wash dishes or do this and that you know take the necessary blows that are required to actually maintain a healthy relationship and well those are things you have to do if you want to maintain a healthy relationship it requires a bit of pain but ultimately you know that the pain results in some form of reward or gratification not being a healthy and happy family and to extend a healthy and happy society potentially we've thrown so much shit out of the window that we shouldn't have done that absolutely absolutely not just in terms of marriage but probably in terms of religiosity as well oh dude the bath's gone like everything's gone out of the window and uh this is why this is why i find it i find it so difficult now the liberal impulses and the progressive impulses that i have in me i find them getting dampened down by increasing wisdom i find in the past um and that's a what you say like an internal struggle that i'm dealing with at the moment where i'm just so tentative about whatever the next piece of progression is like what if we what if we throw away yet another thing that we desperately needed but we didn't know about yes well the notion about progressivism i find interesting and we don't necessarily have a discussion about politics is that where are we progressing to just because you're progressing doesn't mean you're progressing in the right direction you could be regressing in fact if you're throwing out ideas and concepts and institutions that are long held and vitally important to the society or the survival families and societies you're probably going the wrong direction i don't know i don't know it's a some sort of cultural revolution like that i think would be a pretty cool thing we were talking before we got started about the fact that you have a red pill for men that only takes you up to the point at which you fuck a girl and then it goes away and you have uh i think it's like the pink pill or women's dating uh and stuff and it's basically the same thing for women but there's no equivalent learning using the understandings of evolutionary psychology to encourage an effective and foster a successful marriage and then family life moving forward like it's just it's a huge huge problem swimming underneath the water that most people don't know about that the culture is actively working to pull us away from and now it's being reinforced it's feeding the most base elements of our uh if limitly hijacking us in the worst way possible and taking us further and further away from a destination which is not only good for individual flourishing but also good for civilizational flourishing as well completely correct maybe the reason why that is is that it doesn't sell it's not sexy enough it's not medically pleasing to want a family per se into to you know the 2.5 kids or whatever it's just not something that is encouraged to for people to want they'd much rather engage in culture and do what you like right but understand that there are consequences i think that that's probably the fundamental lesson here is that actions have consequences you have to you have to bear those consequences but the single biggest predictor for extra marital sex is premarital sex premarital sex correct correct and one of the biggest points of um or factors that that leads to divorce is exactly that is the amount of um of sexual parties you had prior to marriage without economics i've got some friends who are absolutely fucked i've got some friends who are not going to be able to have a conversation all done in marriage at all dude stop it stop it i know i know you're not thinking about this you're 25 and full of testosterone and just sleeping with anything that moves but i promise you in 25 years time when you're itching gripping onto the bedsheets in the middle of the night because you're so torn uh you're gonna thank me that's a hell of a thing because you know as a criminologist we it's fascinating when we look at the rates of crime commission between between the ages of 15 and 25 is that's when most guys will commit the vast majority of crime and then it sort of papers off beyond the age of 25 and it's because of testosterone right your testosterone typically decreases at the age of 26 why is it the case that people who are on trt which is super physiological levels of testosterone aren't committing to the crime or are they i don't know i don't know that's that's a great question for a criminologist answer i think the reason why that is that men that typically take trt are probably in their 40s maybe like 30s they already have a career in a family and so that is one of the main uh several main factors that would prevent you from engaging crimes having a stable family and um a stable livelihood and so you don't want to destroy any of that by engaging crime so what we don't want is a big bunch of roving bands of incels who are all on trt in their 40s jacked out of their minds with huge war arms yeah yeah yeah definitely that i mean i do worry about that though particularly the the rise of inceldom and the effect it's going to have on crime because we can probably talk about statistics around this and the sort of things we're seeing uh at the fringes in terms of incels engaging crime and all the indicators would would tell me that there is going to be a living crisis with regard to this it may not be as serious as um let's say rapid drug for example but it is going to be an increasing probability for it do you think that incels should be considered a terrorist group oh that's a good question i uh i don't want to wait for that one because that's all well i will give you an answer it's not that i'm afraid of providing an answer it's there has to be an ideological opponent a component that is attached to whether or not a group is labeled as an incel or excuse me as a terrorist and uh is it an ideology maybe maybe i'll have to give more thought to that i don't quite know the answer to the question it's a good question uh it's nana kates who does the i think it's the incel podcast or the black pill podcast and um it was briefly after that guy in plymouth or portsmouth that um went on a shooting rampage and he was associated with some incel black pill forums and they started calling it a terrorist attack yes it may have a backfire effect actually thinking about it now because this you have to imagine that this demographic of people is already downtrodden to begin with and further labeling them as terrorists may actually metastasize uh further from activity this is the thing that the press and media and government needs to understand that it is not a it's no longer the case that the media are just a broadcast platform they are it's a two-way street whereby they actually influence the behavior of people on the ground so i had uh andrew gold on the show and he was part of a documentary series about non-offending pedophiles in germany so i think that yeah they call themselves pedophiles and they call the group that um act on their impulses pedo criminals and that's the bification i think we've seen a minor attracted person now map as the uh academically very strange academically justified or labeled term so he was talking to them he said that there's three main risks that these pedophiles not criminals uh that they suffer with uh one of them is being intoxicated the second one is proximity to children and the third is ostracization by society and he says it becomes like a reverse self-fulfilling prophecy if you want to push me away so much and you say there is no place for me in this society i'm reprehensible and i'm disgusting and i'm terrible and i've not got any future at all why should i play your game why should i play your rules why should i why should i go to school if i'm an insult that doesn't feel like he's got any culture any future i shouldn't do that um yes absolutely correct this is a massive issue look for me when it comes to public policy we don't really think clearly about the negative externalities of these policies when it comes to actually putting forth policy one has to think clearly about what the consequences are the benefits of consequences the economist thomas hole thomas hole said that public policy is not you implement something and it's immediately fixed it's actually a trade-off you're giving up something to get something else and so whenever a policy is implemented you have to think very critically about the effects not only in the short term but in the long term think not just about a c b but that but the rest of the letters in the alphabet when it comes to probable outcomes well i mean i don't know i don't know this this for all that it's post-apocalyptic and makes me terrified about what's gonna happen in future it's endlessly fascinating i really appreciate the work that you do and for guiding me through this uh this little back and forth today what have you got coming up have you got any ideas about areas that you're interested in for writing next great question i i i'm a few minds on it because i am interested in returning to capitalism and looking at hollywood and whether or not woke messaging in films actually reduces the amount of viewership and the reading that is in my movies and that'd be interesting to look at but i'm slowly moving away from from writing from uh writing a sort of public intellectual and i'm sort of going in the direction of finance and industry of uh doing my own thing on the side because i don't want to fame i don't want to be seen i don't tweet at all and i will as you pointed out at the outset of this i will publish a paper every two three four months and granted it takes a lot of work to actually write these fucking papers and good god it takes months to actually research it's going back on the paper but it's um it's slowly becoming a time constraint and a constraint on my capital is that i could be doing things which are more productive and beneficial to people as opposed to simply writing papers well from one reader that has at least found a little bit of joy in the stuff that you put out man i think you know whether this is close to the the twilight of your writing career or not i think you've put some awesome stuff out there and it's really really interested me so yeah i hope you've got a few more left in the tank and then we've got an excuse to do this again i really appreciate it chris and thank you for having me on the podcast it was a fantastic conversation i should actually thank rob henderson that's not a bitch who's bought me a cigar and it's probably waiting for me back in the house but i'm gonna thank you because he's actually uh he i was actually hesitant because i don't really do podcasts but he said chris is a great guy you gotta talk to him i trust him he's one of the dude bros i uh i'm a bit of a dude bro myself to be honest so i guess we uh yeah we got on well i've got that asian seal of approval that's all i'm here for that half asian is approval is the joke that we make half asian rob henderson wonderful buddy take care all that