Status/coolness first, THEN evangelize for whatever the thing is

People want to be part of a group, not "right"

No one listens to or wants to follow losers: that's the fundamental rule of life and “What are your rules for talking about RP concepts?” Many guys online seem to want to talk about anti-social Red Pill jargon without working on themselves first, which is a mistake, but it's also a class of mistake more generally: no one listens to someone they think is lower status than themselves.

(One good thing about science as a practice and system is that it forces higher-status, eminent people to listen who lower-status, not-eminent people if the latter are right and the former wrong. Business can also function that way, because a business composed of high-status, wrong people will fail. A business startup that has low-status, correct people will see the low-status people rise in status until they replace the existing high-status group, then the process repeats as consumer tastes change and businesses ossify. Government fails because real-world feedback loops are much weaker.)

I've been fairly successful at getting chicks into the non-monogamy scene for a bunch of reasons, but a big one is because I've worked on myself first. While I'm not some super cool guy like a professional actor, I have my shit together and can be pretty direct with chicks. Chicks can tell that if they pass on me, I can and will find another... many guys can't and won't. Chicks like guys who other chicks like, and chicks have a subliminal sense for guys who f**k versus guys who don’t. Many chicks still say no to me, that's fine, that's their prerogative, but chicks are intrigued by guys who want, but don't need, them. I don't get rattled much by chicks and their natural drama, so I can usually bring them into my frame and introduce the ideas around non-monogamy that I've been writing about.

We can see from history (you are reading a lot, right?) that the effect you have depends on who you are: in the Civil Rights movement, for example, black leaders realized they needed the symbols of their movement to have huge, supernormal amounts of dignity. Basic people with basic, petty flaws weren't sufficient: anyone involved in leading the movement needed to be highly dignified, and ideally very Christian, to counteract the narrative that some kinds of humans are more human than other kinds of humans, or that some kinds of humans are more like animals than other kinds of humans. People like Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks were elevated, because both projected a strong sense of dignity, humanity, and righteousness (King's love of p***y wasn't widely known then... if it had been, he would have been a bad choice, despite his rhetorical excellence). The Civil Rights movement aligned itself with the dominant religious factions of its day.

This is true of any kind of movement, sales pitch, etc. Salesmen are most often tall, good looking, act empathetic, and speak well because they need to project social savvy, to be the kind of person other people want to affiliate with or associate with. I'm not a natural salesman. One of Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power is, "Win Through Your Actions - Never Through Argument." In science and engineering, you win through argument and math. In human matters, you win through feelings, and that might be why a lot of digital male thinkers don't do well with the hottest female analogue thinkers. Men are more likely to attempt to learn what is right and true based on science, facts, and logic, while chicks are more likely to believe what is right based on feelings, and these incompatible world systems create a lot of bad feelings (the female love of feelings is why shit like astrology and tarot appeals so much to chicks, and why so few chicks become scientists and engineers).

"Status first, evangelize later" is also why I have been talking about game as 1) having value, 2) value delivery mechanism, and 3) (Magnum emphasizes this) location / environment. All three variables matter, probably in that order. If you are missing the first one, #2 won't matter and even #3 will be less useful. "Having value" will do a lot to make you high status.

So many guys say they try to tell their friends about seduction arts and related areas... they don't understand that they have to be cool first, THEN maybe talk. "Cool" is the high school or college word for "value" or "status." Guys can't go the other way around: if they are not cool, they alienate themselves further, and a lot of guys in RP, seduction, etc. seem to be very alienated and disconnected to begin with. A guy who other people don't respect who starts spouting off weird, anti-social-seeming concepts he's read about on the Internet, is not going to come off well.

Cool / status are kinda hard to define, but we know them when we see them. Part of game is learning cool / high-status behaviors and them implementing them. Cool / status can also mean different things in different places, at different jobs and different situations. Some guys can have amazing status at their intellectual jobs, then go to a wedding or a party weekend and none of the hot chicks give a shit about how the guy implemented a TPS report system that saves the company a million dollars a year. The next week, the fun wedding party guy might be depressed because he can't get a job and most chicks who have a real job will not date guys without one.

Any individual has a set number of "weirdness points" and they should be spent carefully. The cooler you are, the more weirdness points you get. Most guys get very few weirdness points and blow them by talking about seduction mechanics or red pill jargon, etc. A guy who is successful with women will naturally draw other guys who will want to learn about what he's doing... the same as guys admire the captains of sports teams, the best programmer in the company, etc. If you're not seen as good with women, no one gives a f**k what you think about women, sexual dynamics, etc.

Most people are not trying to be factually correct about the world… they are trying to fit in with their group. Once you see that you will see why, for example, people repeat factually incorrect claims about healthcare: if their perceived leader makes those factually incorrect claims part of their overall identity, then people will repeat them. Fitting in with the group becomes more important than seeking the truth. Our social brains probably didn’t evolve to solve problems better, they evolved to deal with group dynamics better.

Once you move away from factual and rigorous fields like physics, it’s also possible to find “facts” or “data” to support any kind of conclusion. Lots of “smart” people, in an IQ sense, in the 20th century advocated for communism / socialism, despite the obvious drawbacks of those government systems. But it was possible to collect enough data and “facts” to try to support that conclusion, to ignore the Soviet Union’s mass murder apparatus, etc.

Most people feel their present lives and beliefs are “good enough” at any point in time. Outside of moments of upheaval, most people aren’t open to most kinds of change. Exceptions to stasis tend to occur around upheavals like breakup, divorce, job loss, death of family or friends, etc. A moment of upheaval is when I began talking to this guy about seduction arts… before his breakup, he was too much a beta feminist to be properly interested. But when his girlfriend dumped him, he realized that he had no game and understood nothing about women, and then change became more appealing to him.

“Status and coolness before evangelism” is on my mind right now because of something I realized about Ms. Slav and her relationship to some of my psychological struggles (more on that in another post, if you want to listen to my moronic bleating about interior state). Her and I together might be able to accomplish things in non-monogamy with her that are larger than the ones I can accomplish on my own... but, simultaneously, I'm no longer sure I want to do that, so I feel pulled in multiple directions and am unsure of myself, at a macro level... a pretty unusual situation for me.

For the last ten years, I have often been unsure at a micro level, when I ask myself, "Should I try to date this chick or that chick on Wednesday?" or "should I text her now, or wait till tonight?" Basic game questions. On a macro level, my goal has consistently been, "Bang more hot chicks." Now my macro is unsettled, and that may be feeding back into my micro. Aligned micro-macro lead to optimal psychology.

You see misaligned psychology more frequently in chicks, when a chick is like, "I want a boyfriend! I want to get married" but she is also f**king randoms from online, hooking up with her ex, and otherwise engaging in behaviors incompatible with boyfriend/marriage. Most younger chicks, being illogical, hate it when you point out that her behaviors are not compatible with her statements. I have some of that going on right now too, but I am trying to work this out... my own psychology is misaligned and I know it.

It's because Ms. Slav is very unusual that I have written so much about her. I think I wrote that previously, but based on some feedback I've been getting, I want to mention it here: don't take Ms. Slav as typical of the non-monogamy scene. She is not, at all. She has unusual psychology and is also abnormally young and hot. But she is the reason why some guys will stay in it... they occasionally get lucky when very unusual girls like her come along, who are willing to f**k guys they really shouldn't.