Red Pill in Reality

(1) Dozens of prison letters sent to Chris Watts in which women and men profess their love for the triple murderer and send sexy photos

The Daily Mail says that both men and women sent admiring letters to the killer, but somehow they don’t manage to quote any from men.

A majority of the letters were from women, and many of these included photos that the sender purported to be of them as well as promises to send more images or add money to Watts’ commissary account.

The article also notes that “Some of his mail is not supportive with many telling him they hope he’s raped and attacked behind bars over the sick murders.” It’s nice that some people have appropriate reactions to a man who murdered his pregnant wife and two daughters. (Jesus!) But: How many nice guys get bikini photos from hot babes (see the link) trying to establish a relationship?

(2) Shocker: Mattress girl is attracted to masculine man

During the summer of 2018, [Columbia mattress girl Emma] Sulkowicz tells me, she was single for the first time in years. Swiping through Tinder, a man she found “distasteful” super-liked her. “It smelled like Connecticut,” she says of his profile. “He was very blond, law school, cut jawline, trapezoidal body figure, tweed suit kind of vibe, but something inside of me made me swipe right, I don’t know.”

That “but” is hilarious. Do women not understand themselves, or do they think we don’t understand them?

They began messaging, and she found him witty. “He was actually way more fun to talk to than any other person I matched with.”

(3) ‘Mad Men’ actress Christina Hendricks files for divorce from her husband of 10 years, actor Geoffrey Arend

This is a classic case of what happens when the women’s career situation puts her at a significantly higher status level than her man’s:

Hendricks was nominated for Emmy Awards for six straight years for AMC’s “Mad Men,” and now stars in the NBC crime drama “Good Girls.” Arend starred on the CBS drama “Madam Secretary” [some show that no one watches].

Also, look at the photo at the link. Their attractiveness differential is heavily in favor of Hendricks. Here’s another pic of her:

She kinda has psycho eyes, but a man who isn’t red-pilled might not even notice that.

Such an attractiveness differential is not a problem normally because the man’s looks aren’t as important to his sexual market value as a woman’s. His frame and social status are much more important. But of course that’s the problem here. He’s both uglier than her and now in terms of social status is lower on the totem pole than her. Bets on who initiated the divorce?

Note the headline: “Christina Hendricks files for divorce…”

Humor bonus:

The two announced their separation in a statement in October, saying they had an incredible time together, but are now on separate paths though they “will always work together to raise our two beautiful dogs.”


(4) Very much related to the above: Top jobs lead to divorce for women, but not for men

(Via Ben Gadwin at

Combining an enriching career and a loving relationship is a goal for many people. But for women, this goal still presents higher hurdles, even in the most gender-equal countries in the world. Our research on Sweden finds that women pay a high price for their career success. Being promoted to a top job in politics or business leads to a dramatic increase in the divorce rate for women, but not for men.

The article proceeds to not mention at all who is initiating the divorces which, apparently, fall out of the sky and land on these poor, helpless women. I don’t know about Sweden, but in the U.S., about seventy-five percent of divorces are initiated by women. In other words, this is classic female hypergamy. A wife’s status rises relative to her husband’s ➞ she initiates divorce.

The article acknowledges this, several paragraphs down:

We get closer to understanding the reasons for women’s divorces by zooming in on which relationships are more likely to end after the promotion. This detective work leads to suggestive evidence about couple formation. Heterosexual women — both those that aim for a top job and those who do not — often enter relationships with men who are older and earn more money than they do. Men, in contrast, often have younger wives with lower-paying jobs. The tendency for women to “marry up” means that their own promotion to a top job could create particular frictions at home. The economic and status balance that the couple used to have gets out of balance.

All they tell us about the data is:

In the Swedish data, divorces after promotion are concentrated to couples in which the wife was younger than her husband by a larger margin and where the wife took a larger share of the parental leave. The situation looks entirely different in more gender-equal couples. For women with a smaller gap in age to their spouse, and who split parental leave more equally with their partner, divorce is not affected by the wife’s promotion.

Let’s re-play a part of that passage: “divorces after promotion are concentrated to couples in which the wife was younger than her husband by a larger margin…” I suspect that’s proxying the wife simply being younger, period. That is, she has more sexual marketplace options.

(5) October 2019: Men with psychopathic traits are more attractive to women, study suggests

Not that we didn’t already know this, but…

“Psychopathic men have a personality style that makes them appear attractive to women in dating encounters. This may be because they are extra confident or feel at ease or know exactly what to say to get the attention of women,” Brazil told PsyPost.

(But how do they know what to say to get the attention of women?)

The researchers asked 46 male students at a Canadian university to participate in a video-recorded, mock dating scenario with a female research assistant. The assistant began the conversation by asking the participant what he liked to do on a first date or what he thought was important in a relationship.

The male participants also completed assessments of psychopathy, social intelligence and sociosexuality.

Afterward, the researchers had 108 women view the dating videos and rate each man on general attractiveness, sexual attractiveness and confidence, and leave voice messages.

Brazil and Forth found that men who scored higher on the psychopathy assessment were also rated more desirable by women.

The researchers concluded that their results “suggest that psychopathy in men may enable them to ‘enact’ the desirable qualities women prefer in social and dating encounters,” according to Psychology Today.

However, the researchers said these traits likely only help men on a short-term basis.

“Another important caveat to consider is that even though psychopathy may have these benefits of attracting others, there are enormous costs and risks to being psychopathic that helps clarify why not more people are psychopathic,” Brazil explained to PsyPost.

It is true that there must be costs as well as benefits of psychopathy, or all men would be psychopaths. Also, the benefit to being a psychopath certainly is a decreasing function of the number of psychopaths in the social environment. If every man were a psychopath, women would be aware of psychopathic mating strategies like casual lying and wouldn’t trust anything men said. But if they don’t trust men’s statements, then lying conveys no advantage. If the proportion of psychopaths is small, and most men a woman encounters are honest most of the time, then she’ll be trusting, so lying will be believed and will be advantageous. Similarly, psychopaths tend to “have an inflated sense of importance,” as the article notes, which can present to women as self-confidence (at least in the short run). But if all men had an inflated sense of importance, it would contain no mating advantage in terms of standing out from the average.

One angle on Game: It gives normal men an advantage over psychopaths, since normal men are able to form normal emotional attachments, which is good for long-term mating strategies, while also teaching men to use certain behaviors that woman are attracted to in a short-run sense (self-importance, etc.), which can be effective short-run mating strategies.

A “Holiness Spiral” in Evolutionary Biology

Eliezer Yudkowsky’s unnerving example of mouse biology:

There is a segregation-distorter on the male sex chromosome of some mice which causes only male children to be born, all carrying the segregation-distorter. Then these males impregnate females, who give birth to only male children, and so on. You might cry “This is cheating!” but that’s a human perspective; the reproductive fitness of this allele is extremely high, since it produces twice as many copies of itself in the succeeding generation as its nonmutant alternative. Even as females become rarer and rarer, males carrying this gene are no less likely to mate than any other male, and so the segregation-distorter remains twice as fit as its alternative allele. It’s speculated that real-world group selection [among reproductively isolated populations] may have played a role in keeping the frequency of this gene as low as it seems to be. In which case, if mice were to evolve the ability to fly and migrate for the winter, they would probably form a single reproductive population, and would evolve to extinction as the segregation-distorter evolved to fixation.

That is, this allele does very well reproductively until it destroys the entire population of which it’s a member because there are no females left. Obviously this example doesn’t involve politics, but it has similar dynamics: Something that does well for the individual (gene or person) in the short run, while eating away at the individual’s own foundations. In the case of the mice it’s a gene that eliminates females; in the case of our current holiness spiral it’s white people shouting that white people are evil and should be attacked. Saying things like that identifies one as safely leftist(*) in the haute reaches of western culture these days. But of course it destroys one’s safety in the long run.

A holiness spiral has the aspect of being in the ocean on a raft, and hacking away at the raft with an axe because it somehow helps you in the short run, even as it guarantees your death in the long run. E.g. there are a bunch of people on the raft, and somehow a convention has gotten established that they single out the person who’s hacking away at the raft with the least enthusiasm and attack him. Everybody wants to hack at the raft at least as enthusiastically as everyone else. If they think about it at all, they’re thinking, “Sure, this behavior will guarantee that we all die eventually, but if I stop hacking I’ll die right now.”

Yudkowsky also mentions the possibility of viruses greedily killing their host before they can propagate to another host. Basically there’s no reproductive benefit to an individual member of the virus from reproducing slowly to keep the host alive: The other viruses also reap the benefit of the “prudent” one’s restraint, and they reproduce faster than the prudent one. So, prudent virus genes are out-selected. Given that, the surprising observation is that any illnesses ever propagate before killing their host. Yudkowsky: “I don’t know if a disease has ever been caught in the act of evolving to extinction, but it’s probably happened any number of times.”

* Comparatively safe. Fortunately, as the holiness spiral becomes ever more insane, it becomes ever less safe even to be a leftist. This reduces the incentive to engage in leftist holiness signaling, so is one of the things which may rescue us as people choose up sides in the impending civil war.

Miscellany 17: “Miscellany” is an anagram of “slimy lance.” Really makes you think.

(1) Happy New Year, bitches!

(2) Me March 2018: Trump will not be impeached over “Russia.”

They can’t and won’t impeach the T-Dawg on “Russia.” They’d have more luck with some parking ticket, something that he actually did. Or they’d have more luck alleging that something legal that he did, is actually illegal. What they can’t and never will do is introduce articles of impeachment about the utterly insane “election fixing” horseshit.

Note I’m not saying they won’t try to impeach him over something – of course they will, if they have the numbers in the House; Trump’s election has them absolutely frantic. I’m saying that it won’t be about the retarded “election meddling” thing.

Called it!

Also: In the “impeachment investigation” vote of Oct./Nov. 2019, not one Republican in the House of Representatives voted for the investigation.

And in the actual vote to impeach, not one GOP House member cucked.

They’re wising up.

(3) Hypothalamus smaller in users of the Pill:

You have to be careful about believing academic research these days due to the replication crisis. But it’s plausible that messing with natural bodily processes could have bad effects. In fact that should be the default assumption.

(4) Antifa-linked defendant gets 6 years in brutal baton attack in Portland:

We are not yet in a state of complete lawlessness.

(5) Yet another reason libertarianism is doomed: As has become obvious in recent years,

Individualism is not a war-time ideology.

“The strength of the pack is the wolf, and the strength of the wolf is the pack.”
—Kipling, The Second Jungle Book

(6) Evolutionary psychology:

Genetic Ties May Be Factor In Violence in Stepfamilies
by Jane E. Brody, Feb. 10, 1998

A WOMAN’S live-in boyfriend murders her child fathered by another man. A woman neglects her young stepsister and punishes her so viciously that she dies. A stepfather sexually abuses his wife’s daughter by a former husband.

As these examples drawn from news articles over last year demonstrate, the Cinderella story is hardly a fairy tale. Researchers are finding that the incidence of violence and abuse is vastly greater in stepfamilies than in traditional families in which the children are biologically related to both parents and to one other.

Of course, most stepfamilies do well, despite potential stresses. And plenty of families in which all the children are the progeny of both parents are fraught with violence and despair.

But stepfamilies are at much higher risk than are traditional families. For example, Dr. Martin Daly and Dr. Margo Wilson, evolutionary psychologists at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, found that the rate of infanticide was 60 times as high and sexual abuse was about eight times as high in stepfamilies as is in biologically related families.

“We demonstrated a very large excess risk to stepchildren, an increase of thousands of percentage points,” Dr. Daly said in an interview.

Link via Jim’s blog, August 2016:

(7) (6) A good quote from Moldbug here:

The lesson of history is quite clear. Whether you love the W-force [leftism] or hate it, surrendering to it is not an effective way to resist it. There is no stable point along the left–right axis at which the W-force, having exacted all the concessions to which justice entitles it, simply disappears. Oh, no. It always wants more… The persistence of this delusion [that leftism can be placated] in Anglo-American thought is quite remarkable.

I’m not a fan of Moldbug, but this at least, is a good insight. Everyone on the right now knows that leftism cannot be appeased, but Moldbug got there early.