Post: #51

(02-24-2015 03:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  You're confusing influence with importance. Roissy has been read by millions and affected the way ordinary men live their lives. Chomsky has been influential with far less people (fellow academics).

I'm sure no one here doubts Roissy's intellect, but to assert that "he is the biggest American intellectual of the past 100 years or so, and has more impact on the lives of men than anyone else," is a statement beyond absurdity; I'm sure I don't need to point out why.

Here's a list of Americans whose work have been far more influential than Roissy's.
* Abraham Maslow (psychologist) (Maslow's hierarchy needs; even Roissy has referenced it )

* Albert Ellis (psychologist) (created REBT; paved the way for cognitive-behavioral therapy, one of the most widely-used forms of psychotherapy today)

* Benjamin Graham (economist) (The Intelligent Investor was arguably the greatest book about investing in the 20th century, and it's still referenced by many investors today. If you consider Roissy more influential than him, I'll need to have some of what you're smoking.)

* John Dewey (psychologist, philosopher) (his ideologies have had a major impact on social and educational reforms)

Need I keep going?

Post: #52

How many people actually read the "Manosphere"? As a percentage of the population it's pretty tiny. Even most guys I know into game have never heard of Roissy (or even Roosh). He's only important within our own little bubble.

Post: #53

Arthur Schopenhauer was not popular until he was 61 years old. He was sure that one day will come and he would be understood. He was ignored for decades. Deluge correctly states that Roissy is only important within our own little bubble, but eventually Roissy's ideas will be recognized universally.

note: I'm talking about Roissy 2007-2010 .

Post: #54

^^It would be helpful if he published his work via print. He should call it Roissy in DC- The Hard Copy.

Post: #55

(02-24-2015 03:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  So is Aristotle not an intellectual because he doesn't draw from correlative studies?

Aristotle lacked the quantitative framework to run studies being there few inventions back then which he could use to observe the natural world. Many of his claims WRT the *physical world* were disproven empirically. His claims WRT philosophy can continue to be debated. Your comparison between the two is a stretch, at best.

That being said, he was a Philosopher in nature. He taught students and was brought up in Plato's academy. Hate on "credentialism" all you want but the academic equivalent today would be a PhD level. This also harkens back to my main criticism of Heartiste WRT his inability to provide a holistic perspective on the studies he cites. It does a disservice to readers, the actual researchers, and he would be laughed out of a dissertation. I have an immense respect for most PhDs who come out of good schools. They really do put the rest of their youth on the line to push human knowledge a relative *inch* further in their specific niche.


Carol Dwecks (2007-2010) more recent research flies right in the face of his HBD siren call. Her studies aren't just correlative like so many of the 80s-early 00s literature heartiste likes to cite, she has experimentally proven her findings as well. She is currently one of the top psychologists in her subfield, and is currently seen as a gamechanger in her intervention studies running right now that are benefiting disenfranchised youths. Even the *real* scientists (or 'intellectuals' as you ambiguously put it) who completely disagree with her cite her research to challenge it. OTOH, Heartiste painstakingly avoids her research despite dipping his toes into her subfield of psychology. NexxtLevelUp cited her research in a 3-part takedown of these bigoted beliefs. Real intellectuals are in dialogues with other real intellectuals, not in selectively-approved-comment pissing matches in pseudo-anonymous commenters who are frustrated with their lack of success with women


Heartiste is a game blogger. If you want to pin a game blogger as an intellectual, you might as well target Rollo Tomassi or Roosh who have actually written books on their topic of interest first. At the end of the day, a blogger is a blogger. Rollo unfortunately gets himself in the trenches of the comment sections as well, and that disappoints me.

Post: #56

Wow, this is a good thread but people are using the word "intellectual" way too loosely.

Of course, it's also being used way too loosely in the world at large but that's a different story.

Post: #57

(02-24-2015 04:57 PM)Shemar Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 03:15 PM)Samseau Wrote:  You're confusing influence with importance. Roissy has been read by millions and affected the way ordinary men live their lives. Chomsky has been influential with far less people (fellow academics).

I'm sure no one here doubts Roissy's intellect, but to assert that "he is the biggest American intellectual of the past 100 years or so, and has more impact on the lives of men than anyone else," is a statement beyond absurdity; I'm sure I don't need to point out why.

Here's a list of Americans whose work have been far more influential than Roissy's.
* Abraham Maslow (psychologist) (Maslow's hierarchy needs; even Roissy has referenced it )

* Albert Ellis (psychologist) (created REBT; paved the way for cognitive-behavioral therapy, one of the most widely-used forms of psychotherapy today)

* Benjamin Graham (economist) (The Intelligent Investor was arguably the greatest book about investing in the 20th century, and it's still referenced by many investors today. If you consider Roissy more influential than him, I'll need to have some of what you're smoking.)

* John Dewey (psychologist, philosopher) (his ideologies have had a major impact on social and educational reforms)

Need I keep going?

The fact is all of the guys you referenced didn't start to get big until decades after they wrote their big works, with the exception of Graham. But even Graham has only been for the rich, whereas Roissy will go to everyone.

When we compare's Roissy's initial reception to the receptions of these other thinkers, immediately Roissy has an unfair advantage: the internet. The entire way of thinking about women is changing at warp speed because of the speed at which ideas travel through the internet. This is a major reason why Roissy's influence continues to spread like wildfire. Roissy may not even be that deserving of his fame, since he was really just one of the first intellectuals to use the internet effectively. The manosphere has been growing by the tens and hundreds of thousands every year since Roissy started in 2007. You guys think this is nothing but you don't understand how ideas grow.

Most intellectual revolutions take decades to gain traction. The fact that one guy was read by so many people and copied over and over within a span of 5 years is an extreme rarity for any society. Most prior intellectual revolutions were, again, focused within the dusty walls of academia or the rich, and barely affected 2% of the people.

The manosphere meanwhile is way past affecting 2% of men out there. Not to mention the women who hear about it as well (but of course none of the info here is of any use to them, so we cannot measure them as people who have been influenced). There's really no signs of growth slowing down and as things deteriorate more men discover Roissy's ideas.

Post: #58

Leading American intellectuals of the past 100 years who have had a profound impact on society?

1. Milton Friedman. Most prominent advocate of the modern free market economy who has advised dozens of heads of state and academics.
2. Ayn Rand. There are still Ayn Rand student clubs; Ayn Rand institute; her books are still widely sold (Currently #3 best seller in political philosophy) and translated into dozens of languages.
3. William F. Buckley. Founded the National Review at the age of 20 and is considered father of the modern conservative movement.

All their ideas have shaped American life to a degree some blogger (who I never heard about until a week ago) whose real name people don't know can only dream of.

Post: #59

Quote:I am surprised Roissy never joined the forum. He knows a lot and he and Roosh are buddies.

Roissy is a member here. I think he only had about 10-20 posts though. I'm too lazy to search.

Post: #60

I really miss beta of the month posts and his golden age right until 2010. Blog has gone down a bit.

Post: #61

(03-04-2015 11:48 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

Quote:I am surprised Roissy never joined the forum. He knows a lot and he and Roosh are buddies.

Roissy is a member here. I think he only had about 10-20 posts though. I'm too lazy to search.

You can just check the members list: Roissy.

Allegedly the biggest American intellectual of the past 100 years, but he doesn't even have a rep point? Guess that settles that debate.

Post: #62

(I didn't want to start yet another Alpha/Beta thread, so I figured this would be the best place to post my thoughts.)

From Roissy's Defining the Alpha Male:

Quote:Many want to believe that getting girls is ancillary to being a true alpha male; that the real measure of an alpha lies in his ability to dominate other men, or his command of his environment, or his thirst for swashbuckling adventure. While these are admirable alpha traits, they are nothing but a means to an end. Make no mistake, at the most fundamental level the CRUX of a man’s worth is measured by his desirability to women, whether he chooses to play the game or not. Pussy is the holy grail. That is why the obese, socially maladroit nerdboy who manages to unlock the gate to the secret garden and bang a 10 regularly is an alpha male. And that is also why the rich, charming entrepreneur who because of an emotional deficiency or mental sickness lives mired in parched celibacy is not an alpha male.

We've all seen guys define alpha in such a way as to fit themselves into that category. It's the ego's way of artificially propping itself up. To quote The Rational Male:

Quote:The reason that so many guys get so bent about what defines an Alpha is usually because they don’t fit that general definition very well. So it’s a logical ego defense to make necessity a virtue (once again) and redefine it to better suit their own conditions. It’s exactly the same dynamic as the debate over Looks vs. Game. Game takes priority for those without Looks and vice versa. A personal definition of “what’s Alpha?” becomes whatever plays to an individual guy’s strengths, and women who can’t appreciate them (i.e. all of them) are relegated to being less-than quality women. Sour grapes are sour, but deductively it makes sense; we want to be the embodiment of what we ‘know’ is attractive to women and others.

Roissy, per usual, finds a brilliant way around this problem. But first, follow me on a short tangent:

Women require two things from men in order to successfully pass on their genes:

1) a matching set of quality genes from a man, and

2) protection and provision for their child as it grows.

We've come to call this mating strategy "Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks", and for good reason: while most women would prefer to find a combination of these traits in one man, Mother Nature realized that the sexiest Cads rarely make the best Dads, and selected for women who were able to have their cake and eat it, too.

From Roissy's The Necessity of Relationship Game:

Quote:The researchers believe the findings shed light on a suite of conflicting behaviors that stem from mating strategies that might have provided an evolutionary benefit to women’s female ancestors of long ago but today probably serve no other purpose than to stir the domestic pot.

She calls the urge for a stable long-term partner along with the increased desire for a more sexually attractive mate during periods of high fertility the “dual mating hypothesis.”

Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks is a quality dysphemism for this hypothesis because it so accurately describes a woman's attitude towards sex. We see women having sex with men displaying alpha traits for the sheer pleasure of it, but generally only having sex reluctantly with more beta men in order to get something out of it. If we continue to pull this thread, we end up with something like this:

Why do women choose to sleep with some men and not others? Because women find some men more sexually arousing than other men.

Why do women find them more arousing? Because these men display particular traits that inspire certain emotions within her, such as lust, that other men do not.

Why do these traits inspire certain emotions? Because exposure to them causes her brain to release a particular combination of chemicals, which her conscious self interprets as sexual arousal.

Why does her brain release these chemicals? Because her genes, which determine the functions of her body (including her brain), are set up in such a way as to recognize specific traits in men and to encourage her body to prioritize mating with men who display them.

Why are her genes set up in this way? Because it gives them the best chance of finding another set of genes most likely to produce a healthy offspring, ensuring their "goal" of successfully passing themselves along to the next generation.

To summarize and reiterate: when women have sex, they either genuinely desire the man they're fucking or they do not. When they do, it's because their bodies make them feel that way, and their bodies feel that way because their genes, which control their bodies, are using emotions to help women select the men who represent the best genetic partnership available.

Once we understand this dynamic, it makes sense to evaluate the alpha-ness of a man based on women's genuine attraction for him. And that's exactly what Roissy proposes:

Quote:Due to this enduring confusion about what makes an alpha, I submit the following system...how hot are the women he can attract, how strong is that attraction for him, and how many of those women find him attractive.

This is how we ought to evaluate how alpha a man is (or isn't). Not by achievement, or status, or power, but by the collective strength of women's genuine attraction for him. Genes don't lie. It doesn't matter if you're short, or bald, or old-if dozens of perfect 10s are crawling through barbed wire and broken glass to fuck you for nothing more than the sheer pleasure of it, congratulations, you've been biologically proven to be an alpha.

(Note that we're not necessarily measuring the amount of sex a man receives, but the amount and intensity of female attraction. I think we would all agree that a man who pays a 10 to service him is less alpha than a man who attracts an 8 of her own volition. And a man who inspires the arousal of many beautiful women, yet declines to act on the opportunity-say, for religious reasons-should still be considered alpha, even if he dies a virgin.)

Now, I will fully admit that there's no hard and fast way to measure exactly how alpha a man is. It's difficult to compare, say, a man with three 8s as casual fuck buddies to a man who is so beloved by a single 9 that she'll kill and steal just to be with him. Regardless, the key point stands: the only way to objectively determine a man's level of alpha is through the proxy of women's genuine sexual attraction.

Now, all this talk of biology doesn't mean that a man is relegated to whatever attractiveness Mother Nature bequeathed to him at birth. We all know there are a variety of traits that will genuinely turn women on: looks, height, musculature, confidence, aggression, status, wit/social savvy/charisma (i.e., game). And a key takeaway is that displayed attractiveness is what matters. All the charm in the world won't do you much good unless you open your mouth.

Finally, given this system it should be obvious that no man exists as purely alpha or beta. There's simply a sliding scale between the two extremes. And fortunately a man's place on the scale, while influenced by some inherent traits like height, is primarily determined by his behavior and the decisions he makes in life.

While some will read this, reflect on their own success (or lack thereof) with women, and take an ego hit in realizing the man in the mirror is not the alpha they imagined him to be, I hope that upon further reflection it inspires hope-hope that with work, a man can change his life for the better.

I was a virgin when I discovered Roissy (and through him, Roosh and the RVF), probably closer to an omega than a beta. Since then I've taken my notch count into the double digits, and even banged as high as an 8. I'm not going to posture and attempt to sell myself as some ultimate alpha, but instead I hope to demonstrate the remarkable effects that a dedication to game and self-improvement can have on a man's sexual prospects. For those reading this now: check out Roissy's archives, put his theories to practice, and with time you too may see yourself emerge from the cocoon of beta in order to soar through this world as an alpha.

Post: #63

That's a pretty good analysis I think. I basically consider that a woman wants either your wallet or your dick, which is a cruder way of saying the same thing.

Post: #64

It should be noted that there are discrepancies here that are not accounted for and those are culture, social conditioning, and the human condition in general.

Biology aside, humans are very far removed from the black & white biology of the natural world. We artificially engineer ourselves and the world around us to be different. We are also social animals that will bend and sway under peer influence. These things will shape and skew he selection process. The Western world is a fantastic example of modifying the system via social engineering.

Post: #65

I miss the Roissy era with beta of the month editions and the chicks dig jerk series.

Post: #66

(04-21-2015 02:42 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  Biology aside, humans are very far removed from the black & white biology of the natural world. We artificially engineer ourselves and the world around us to be different. We are also social animals that will bend and sway under peer influence. These things will shape and skew he selection process. The Western world is a fantastic example of modifying the system via social engineering.

We have always modified our surroundings.

We create new environments and then evolve to best suit those environments. But by then the environments have changed and we must continue to evolve.

Human evolution has accelerated int he past 10,000 years as large-scale societies have developed, because living in a house or a city is so drastically different from our ancestors who lived as hunter-gatherers. Hunter gatherers living from 50,000-40,000 years ago changed much less than people living 10,000 years ago till now because their environment was much more stable.

There are many people who write about this, biology is anything but black and white.

For instance, Peter Frost has written extensively about why many European societies saw drastic drops in violence over the last 1,000 years, and credits it to the state and the church taking a harsh stand against violent crime and promptly executing violent men, taking such genes out of the gene pool over the centuries.

http://www.unz.com/pfrost/western-europe...ication-3/



Steven Pinker has also touched on the topic of declining violence globally.

Post: #67

I compiled all the links into a nicely formatted .mobi for reading on a Kindle. I do not know whether it works on other eReaders too.

Here you go!

Post: #68

I cant remember the last time I visited the Chateau, where pretty lies perish.

Post: #69

When I discovered the manosphere, I read that blog initially in 2009 for game tips. Nowadays I open that site only to read Heartiste's opinions about Trump.

(03-05-2015 01:20 PM)LouieG Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:48 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

Quote:I am surprised Roissy never joined the forum. He knows a lot and he and Roosh are buddies.

Roissy is a member here. I think he only had about 10-20 posts though. I'm too lazy to search.

You can just check the members list: Roissy.

Allegedly the biggest American intellectual of the past 100 years, but he doesn't even have a rep point? Guess that settles that debate.

Holy shit, Heartiste's forum account was opened when the forum was mostly focused on travel and game and was practically unknown.

Years have passed so fast!.

Post: #70

(10-08-2015 02:06 PM)PepsiCoke Wrote:  I compiled all the links into a nicely formatted .mobi for reading on a Kindle. I do not know whether it works on other eReaders too.

Here you go!

Converted nicely to ePub version for iBooks using this tool.

Link to book:
ePub version (7 day link).

Post: #71

I have very mixed feelings about Roissy's material. Some of it is clever, funny, and incredibly insightful. A lot of it can be extremely damaging.

One can very easily read Roissy's material and come away with the conclusion that all women are hypergamous, cock carousel riding sluts. That's a very, very bad mindset to approach women with.

Post: #72

(04-01-2016 01:27 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  I have very mixed feelings about Roissy's material. Some of it is clever, funny, and incredibly insightful. A lot of it can be extremely damaging.

One can very easily read Roissy's material and come away with the conclusion that all women are hypergamous, cock carousel riding sluts. That's a very, very bad mindset to approach women with.

He uses hyperbole and draws extreme conclusions but let me ask you this...would you rather be of the above mindset or a chump who thinks women are all angels? Which do you think is more conducive to good game?

Post: #73

(04-01-2016 01:43 PM)Red_Pillage Wrote:  He uses hyperbole and draws extreme conclusions but let me ask you this...would you rather be of the above mindset or a chump who thinks women are all angels? Which do you think is more conducive to good game?

Neither one is conducive to good game. One is a naive view of the world where needy, low self-esteem women will use you. The other is an overly harsh view of the world where you still get needy, low self-esteem women. Both of them attract drama queens. It's better to have a combination: an appreciation and love for women as they really are. That means not pedestalizing them, but also not seeing them as inherently lower forms of life. That also means having strong boundaries and refusing to take shit from them.

I have this theory called women aren't stupid. Your fundamental beliefs about women will always be sub-communicated.

Post: #74

(04-01-2016 03:27 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(04-01-2016 01:43 PM)Red_Pillage Wrote:  He uses hyperbole and draws extreme conclusions but let me ask you this...would you rather be of the above mindset or a chump who thinks women are all angels? Which do you think is more conducive to good game?

Neither one is conducive to good game. One is a naive view of the world where needy, low self-esteem women will use you. The other is an overly harsh view of the world where you still get needy, low self-esteem women. Both of them attract drama queens. It's better to have a combination: an appreciation and love for women as they really are. That means not pedestalizing them, but also not seeing them as inherently lower forms of life. That also means having strong boundaries and refusing to take shit from them.

I have this theory called women aren't stupid. Your fundamental beliefs about women will always be sub-communicated.

So what you're saying is essentially, NAWALT.

Post: #75

No. I'm saying that roissy's interpretative framework is a crock of shit. It fits perfectly with vox's definition of "gamma."