How intelligent must a man become to attain and retain the hottest girls?

[Jeff]

Hey @Chase

I'm asking you this question as an intermediate -going - advanced guy.

This one requires some context & details for you to be able to answer it, which is why my question cannot be boiled to one line.

1) I'm not a political or religious guy. I've always followed whatever George Carlin said because he always seemed to make the most sense.

I don't talk about politics or feminism or religion on dates. And I don't vote. Never have.

2) I follow a few people on Twitter who seem to know their shit when it comes to health, fitness, philosophical, socio-political stuff. That's not why I follow them, it's mainly for their writing skills but they all have the same belief systems.

They believe in having kids (which I don't oppose), they all hate people who support abortion (which is something I belief requires nuance), and they don't seem to grasp what dating is really like for men. I'm willing to bet that they look down on the pick up arts.

Without exception they're all ecstatic that Trump won (I personally don't have a stake so I can't say much. I don't even live in the US)

3) The more I read their stuff, the more stupid I feel. So far I don't have super strong opinions on the issues/topics I've mentioned above.

However, I'm increasingly inclined to believe that I need to be able to answer all these questions for myself and smarten up because as a man, I believe I have to lead my family when I have one.

My wife's values should match mine.

And because I'm floating about, I don't feel smart enough for certain women who seem to have strong opinions on the aforementioned issues.

You could argue that these smart chicks prefer dumb guys but how do you lead someone who's smarter than you?

Why should she listen to you?

I don't ever ask other pick up artists about their opinions and advice regarding other parts of life.

Most red pill guys regurgitate the same old tired horse shit about women being hypergamous and what not. No substance in their arguments.

And let's face it: These self-proclaimed "alphas" can't hold their own against a super hot chick who's ALSO intelligent, charismatic, and vivacious.

However, you're the rare exception who's not only reached a level of mastery in game - pick up, relationship management, etc., but you also seem to have a firm grasp on other subjects like writing, science, philosophy, music etc.

Based on what I know, you're able to turn even the hottest, bitchiest girls with the strongest frames into cute kittens.

The Twitter figured don't know the intricacies of game and can't empathize with us.

And regular game and red pill guys are rarely well rounded individuals.

You're probably the only one (along with maybe Zan Perrion) who seems to know his shit in a variety of spheres.

My questions:

1. How smart do you need to get girls and have them respect you enough that you can lead them?

You seem to be an expert on handling smart, headstrong girls and have them submit. What does it take to become that man?

And as an extension of this question:

2. What's your opinion on politics and religion? (I don't want to start an argument, I only want to know if there's a better way of looking at these things than the views I've adopted thus far)

3. How did you manage to expand your horizons and become as clear, articulate and knowledgeable in business, writing, music, pick up, and anything else you're good at?

(This one may require an article on its own)

Cheers
Jeff

 

[Bismarck]

Just to be clear, are you talking about naturally good-looking girls or girls who care a lot about their appearance and thus achieve “hottie” status (models, etc.)? (cf. the recent thread where this issue was debated ad nauseam).

 

[Chase]

@Jeff,

Interesting questions!

Hey @Chase

I'm asking you this question as an intermediate -going - advanced guy.

This one requires some context & details for you to be able to answer it, which is why my question cannot be boiled to one line.

1) I'm not a political or religious guy. I've always followed whatever George Carlin said because he always seemed to make the most sense.

I don't talk about politics or feminism or religion on dates. And I don't vote. Never have.

2) I follow a few people on Twitter who seem to know their shit when it comes to health, fitness, philosophical, socio-political stuff. That's not why I follow them, it's mainly for their writing skills but they all have the same belief systems.

They believe in having kids (which I don't oppose), they all hate people who support abortion (which is something I belief requires nuance), and they don't seem to grasp what dating is really like for men. I'm willing to bet that they look down on the pick up arts.

Without exception they're all ecstatic that Trump won (I personally don't have a stake so I can't say much. I don't even live in the US)

3) The more I read their stuff, the more stupid I feel. So far I don't have super strong opinions on the issues/topics I've mentioned above.

Strong opinions are independent of intelligence. I know some very smart people with extremely strong opinions on politics. I also know some extremely stupid people with the same exact, equally strong opinions as the very smart people.

Honestly I used to think very strong opinions were a sign of above-average-at-best-but-always-sub-genius IQ but I realized it’s more a personality thing — certain minds just really LATCH onto concepts then slam shut and refuse to entertain nuance.

I would also offer that strong opinions on politics tend to be tied to historical ignorance. I have never met someone with a deep understanding of history who was able to adopt rigid partisan politics. Rigid partisans think they are going through things for the first time, so it is very exciting to them. Historians recognize we are going through things for like the 200th time, which makes it far less gripping.

However, I'm increasingly inclined to believe that I need to be able to answer all these questions for myself and smarten up because as a man, I believe I have to lead my family when I have one.

My wife's values should match mine.

And because I'm floating about, I don't feel smart enough for certain women who seem to have strong opinions on the aforementioned issues.

You could argue that these smart chicks prefer dumb guys but how do you lead someone who's smarter than you?

Why should she listen to you?

I don't ever ask other pick up artists about their opinions and advice regarding other parts of life.

Most red pill guys regurgitate the same old tired horse shit about women being hypergamous and what not. No substance in their arguments.

And let's face it: These self-proclaimed "alphas" can't hold their own against a super hot chick who's ALSO intelligent, charismatic, and vivacious.

However, you're the rare exception who's not only reached a level of mastery in game - pick up, relationship management, etc., but you also seem to have a firm grasp on other subjects like writing, science, philosophy, music etc.

Based on what I know, you're able to turn even the hottest, bitchiest girls with the strongest frames into cute kittens.

The Twitter figured don't know the intricacies of game and can't empathize with us.

And regular game and red pill guys are rarely well rounded individuals.

You're probably the only one (along with maybe Zan Perrion) who seems to know his shit in a variety of spheres.

My questions:

1. How smart do you need to get girls and have them respect you enough that you can lead them?

You seem to be an expert on handling smart, headstrong girls and have them submit. What does it take to become that man?

For handling smart and headstrong girls, you need superior frames. That is basically “I know better than you.” Rhetoric + understanding + confidence. I wouldn’t say you necessarily need to actually BE SMARTER or have deeper REAL understanding, because I have watched people with poor understandings of things frame control people with deeper understandings into their view. You just need the right combination of rhetorical ability + sufficient depth of understanding + confidence to hold frame.

And as an extension of this question:

2. What's your opinion on politics and religion? (I don't want to start an argument, I only want to know if there's a better way of looking at these things than the views I've adopted thus far)

As far as me, politics-wise, I take the 10,000-year view. My running assumption is as King Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. Each generation repeats the pattern of prior generations without remembering those prior generations or realizing it is repeating them, and the generations that follow will blindly repeat them also; the stream runs always into the sea but the sea is never full. I see lots of people struggling mightily for politics, then I read about nearly identical struggles in ancient Greece, Rome, and China, or medieval Europe, and read about how those struggles play out, then pull the modern struggles through the lens of the myriad prior near-identical struggles: how is it likely to work out for X struggle, given Y maturity of the movement, Z state of the economic-imperial system, and what is the likely end for individuals who place themselves either at the forefront of this movement or as its supporters?

I also ask if my involvement in the process at any level is a superior contribution to the arc of history than other places I could leverage my time. It might be useful to be an Alexander or a Phillip II, or even an early Ptolemy, carving out a new, virgin empire, but it would not be so useful to be a Cicero or a Cleomenes or a Pertinax or a Julian the Apostate, striving mightily to resurrect the dying embers of a tottering civilization. Put another way, I would rather bring a newborn child into the world than devote my life to delaying the inevitable of the elderly on their deathbeds.

Abortion I dislike but don’t have an opinion re: legality of it. Terrible business, killing babies, but hey, Darwin: if people want to axe out their own progeny, and society wants to let them do it, I’m not going to say “let’s police them.” I’m pretty sure under Roman law you were allowed to kill your own kids up to age 18 without penalty.

As far as the latest election, I view it a lot like the people celebrating the crownings of Pertinax or Cleomenes; they may be excited, they may think their societies are coming back, but there is no beating the arc of history. Let them have their enjoyment; perhaps the inevitable gets delayed a little while longer.

Re: religion, I was a devout Christian as a child, then an atheist as a teen who struggled not to fall into the trap of “bitter religion-hating atheist”, became a full materialist “there is nothing beyond the universe which means life is meaningless once the universe ends because nothing will have mattered” and accepted it as my mission to build an empire and extend my life long enough to advance technology and find a way to preserve life in perpetuity beyond the bounds of time-bounded existence, and finally I reasoned it all the way out, realized that bounded existence is an absurd impossibility, yet here we are nevertheless, returned to spirituality, went through the jhānas as Buddha teaches them, and at this point I view life as an experience within bounded reality where the ultimate unbounded “everything” that exists outside bounded spacetime (i.e., “God”, at least as we attempt to name/fathom the unfathomable is concerned) learns about itself in a way that is impossible without bounds, because there is nothing TO learn when you are the infinite, unbounded, the alpha and the omega. Ultimately I accepted all religions as containing a core of truth to them, but wrapped in rituals and rules to guide the masses of people unable to grasp the deeper nature of spirituality and who simply need an authority to tell them what to do to live a moral life unburdened by existential dread.

(the simple way of explaining spirituality vs. religion in my view would be you have Jesus, who offers spiritual enlightenment to those close to achieving it, then Paul, who mainstreams Christianity by devising a bunch of rules, rituals, and restrictions, which allow masses of people to follow a religion; you have Buddha, who offers spiritual enlightenment to those close to achieving it, then the various Buddhist schools that followed after Buddha set a bunch of rules, restrictions, rituals, built a cosmology of gods to follow, etc.)

3. How did you manage to expand your horizons and become as clear, articulate and knowledgeable in business, writing, music, pick up, and anything else you're good at?

(This one may require an article on its own)

Cheers
Jeff

By refusing to accept superficial notions and taking offense at those who insist I do; by being offended by my own emotional tendency to want to adopt a simplistic notion and push it for self-serving reasons; by turning my mind’s inclination to rebel against its other, baser, and stupider tendencies.

I could go a lot deeper, but that would be a book, not an article (guys have asked me to write it, and I have a rough title and a bit of an outline, but no time to write that one yet. Perhaps someday).

Chase

 

[Jeff]

Just to be clear, are you talking about naturally good-looking girls or girls who care a lot about their appearance and thus achieve “hottie” status (models, etc.)? (cf. the recent thread where this issue was debated ad nauseam).

Ultimately, natural beauties.

 

[Jeff]

@Jeff,

Interesting questions!



Strong opinions are independent of intelligence. I know some very smart people with extremely strong opinions on politics. I also know some extremely stupid people with the same exact, equally strong opinions as the very smart people.

Honestly I used to think very strong opinions were a sign of above-average-at-best-but-always-sub-genius IQ but I realized it’s more a personality thing — certain minds just really LATCH onto concepts then slam shut and refuse to entertain nuance.

I would also offer that strong opinions on politics tend to be tied to historical ignorance. I have never met someone with a deep understanding of history who was able to adopt rigid partisan politics. Rigid partisans think they are going through things for the first time, so it is very exciting to them. Historians recognize we are going through things for like the 200th time, which makes it far less gripping.



For handling smart and headstrong girls, you need superior frames. That is basically “I know better than you.” Rhetoric + understanding + confidence. I wouldn’t say you necessarily need to actually BE SMARTER or have deeper REAL understanding, because I have watched people with poor understandings of things frame control people with deeper understandings into their view. You just need the right combination of rhetorical ability + sufficient depth of understanding + confidence to hold frame.



As far as me, politics-wise, I take the 10,000-year view. My running assumption is as King Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. Each generation repeats the pattern of prior generations without remembering those prior generations or realizing it is repeating them, and the generations that follow will blindly repeat them also; the stream runs always into the sea but the sea is never full. I see lots of people struggling mightily for politics, then I read about nearly identical struggles in ancient Greece, Rome, and China, or medieval Europe, and read about how those struggles play out, then pull the modern struggles through the lens of the myriad prior near-identical struggles: how is it likely to work out for X struggle, given Y maturity of the movement, Z state of the economic-imperial system, and what is the likely end for individuals who place themselves either at the forefront of this movement or as its supporters?

I also ask if my involvement in the process at any level is a superior contribution to the arc of history than other places I could leverage my time. It might be useful to be an Alexander or a Phillip II, or even an early Ptolemy, carving out a new, virgin empire, but it would not be so useful to be a Cicero or a Cleomenes or a Pertinax or a Julian the Apostate, striving mightily to resurrect the dying embers of a tottering civilization. Put another way, I would rather bring a newborn child into the world than devote my life to delaying the inevitable of the elderly on their deathbeds.

Abortion I dislike but don’t have an opinion re: legality of it. Terrible business, killing babies, but hey, Darwin: if people want to axe out their own progeny, and society wants to let them do it, I’m not going to say “let’s police them.” I’m pretty sure under Roman law you were allowed to kill your own kids up to age 18 without penalty.

As far as the latest election, I view it a lot like the people celebrating the crownings of Pertinax or Cleomenes; they may be excited, they may think their societies are coming back, but there is no beating the arc of history. Let them have their enjoyment; perhaps the inevitable gets delayed a little while longer.

Re: religion, I was a devout Christian as a child, then an atheist as a teen who struggled not to fall into the trap of “bitter religion-hating atheist”, became a full materialist “there is nothing beyond the universe which means life is meaningless once the universe ends because nothing will have mattered” and accepted it as my mission to build an empire and extend my life long enough to advance technology and find a way to preserve life in perpetuity beyond the bounds of time-bounded existence, and finally I reasoned it all the way out, realized that bounded existence is an absurd impossibility, yet here we are nevertheless, returned to spirituality, went through the jhānas as Buddha teaches them, and at this point I view life as an experience within bounded reality where the ultimate unbounded “everything” that exists outside bounded spacetime (i.e., “God”, at least as we attempt to name/fathom the unfathomable is concerned) learns about itself in a way that is impossible without bounds, because there is nothing TO learn when you are the infinite, unbounded, the alpha and the omega. Ultimately I accepted all religions as containing a core of truth to them, but wrapped in rituals and rules to guide the masses of people unable to grasp the deeper nature of spirituality and who simply need an authority to tell them what to do to live a moral life unburdened by existential dread.

(the simple way of explaining spirituality vs. religion in my view would be you have Jesus, who offers spiritual enlightenment to those close to achieving it, then Paul, who mainstreams Christianity by devising a bunch of rules, rituals, and restrictions, which allow masses of people to follow a religion; you have Buddha, who offers spiritual enlightenment to those close to achieving it, then the various Buddhist schools that followed after Buddha set a bunch of rules, restrictions, rituals, built a cosmology of gods to follow, etc.)



By refusing to accept superficial notions and taking offense at those who insist I do; by being offended by my own emotional tendency to want to adopt a simplistic notion and push it for self-serving reasons; by turning my mind’s inclination to rebel against its other, baser, and stupider tendencies.

I could go a lot deeper, but that would be a book, not an article (guys have asked me to write it, and I have a rough title and a bit of an outline, but no time to write that one yet. Perhaps someday).

Chase

Sorry, I didn't reply. Didn't even get notified of your reply.

Thanks @Chase for getting back to me with such a wonderful answer. Clarifies a bunch of things