The Chad Myth. HIGH IQ TRIGGER WARNING

[NT Master]

THE CHAD MYTH​

By Aryan Li

There are countless games and theories when it comes to dating & hookups. Jestermaxx. Betabuxx. JBW Theory. BBC Theory. Oofy doofy. Pretty boy. Ogremaxxing, etc. There is endless debates on who is right and who is wrong. Each camp has their supporters and detractors. Many passionate arguments for each case. One day I realized that there was validity in these seemingly contradictory points. That these ideas and other concepts like halo/failo, ethnic tax, and countless others are right, but only in specific markets.

See, the sexual marketplace and sexual market value isn’t universal. Just like how there isn’t a universal price for apples. Valuation massively shifts based on location, competition, time period, and other factors (Kalmijn, M. (1998)). In addition, some markets like New York City are large and cosmopolitan. While others like a North Korean village are closed and small.

Each market has different wants & needs. Which is why different markets want irreconcilable traits. Like tan skin vs pale skin. Muscular bodies vs skinny bodies. Ideal height, etc. A man can be incel in one market and live like a Chad in another market. Hence geomaxxing.

Therefore, I conclude there actually is no universal Chad or Stacy. A Chad after all is just a man who is considered very sexually attractive and subsequently sexually successful. 1960s Mick Jagger looks nothing like male models and probably couldn’t fuck Instagram models if he was de-aged and lost his fame. But see, that doesn’t matter. In his sexual market, his looks, money, and status allowed him to bed 700+ women. The many 3rd Worlders who probably thought he looked like a low-t faggot (if they were aware of him) had 0 impact on his local SMV. Because they never were in his sexual market to begin with.

A better example is this Persian woman:

That woman right here is a Stacy. Yes she’s fat. And has a mustache. And looks like a dumb sandnigger. Doesn’t matter. Many men found her sexually attractive. And that’s all it takes to be a Stacy. Nobody except celebrities have to sexually appeal to billions of people. They only have to appeal to those in their network. You can look through countless sex symbols and beauty queens of yesteryear and see how they compare to the roasties of modern times. Some do great and others, not so much (Lorber, 1994). Each market has its own winners and losers based on its internal value structure and other factors. Although there are certainly Chads and Stacies who have far greater mass appeal thanks to good health and other factors.

A lot of takes mess up by treating dating apps like they’re real life. They’re not. They’re a weird, artificial environment with its own rules.

On apps you’re basically a trading card. Photos first, everything else second. Five seconds of attention, max. That setup massively favors the super photogenic, hyper-confident type. The classic “Chad” thrives there because the system is built around snap judgments, not familiarity, comfort, or reputation.

Real life isn’t like that. In person people see you repeatedly. Personality stacks over time. Humor matters. Reliability matters. Social proof matters. Money and stability matter more once things leave swipe-mode and enter actual life.

Also the userbase itself isn’t normal. The apps don’t sample the whole population. They sample a specific slice. More short-term oriented, more novelty seeking, more recently single, more validation chasing. Plenty of couples, quieter people, and routine-oriented folks just aren’t on there at all Barry Schwartz (2004).

I’ll go even further. There’s no single “true” mating market. Never was. Same way there’s no perfectly unbiased person.

People don’t exist in a vacuum. Every environment tilts behavior. Big city vs small town. College vs workplace. Party scene vs church. Online vs real life. Change the setting and people’s standards, priorities, and dealbreakers shift with it.

So when guys talk about “what women want” like it’s one universal rulebook, that’s the mistake. There isn’t one. There are a bunch of overlapping micro-markets, all nudging choices in different directions.

Nothing is neutral. The room always shapes the rules.

A key aspect of loneliness or undesirability is not just a person being considered low-value. But a person being considered low-value compared to their options. Take Exhibit B:

This is a Papua New Guinean man. Him and other Melanesians are widely considered the ugliest, most repulsive race to ever exist. 95% of this forum mogs not only this man, but the vast majority of Melanesian man, at least by the standards of Western women. Yet despite that fact, you will never see him or any other abo rotting on an incel forum. And that’s not just because they’re too likely too retarded and too poor to access it.

It’s because the New Guinean sexual market is closed. New Guineans exclusively marry each other because only they understand their lifestyle and culture and other stuff. That, and the women are literally just as repulsive as the men. To this man, his SMV in London is about as important as his SMV in the Andromeda Galaxy, utterly alien and irrelevant.

A huge cause of Asian male loneliness is not just their low SMV in Western dating markets, but their low SMV compared to their relative SMV of their women (although K-pop is slightly reversing this). South Asian men (or Pajeets) are seen as shit in western dating markets, but since few non-Indian men want pajeetas, NRIs just pair off with each other and remain endogamous. Rice men are low-rated, but East Asian women are highly valued in these markets. This SMV differential has led to noodlewhores becoming sluts & wives to White normie men while East Asian men being single despite being well educated and high earning (Rudder, 2014). SMV differentials lead to inceldom.

Zoom out and you see an even bigger reason loneliness is up and birth rates are down. Being single just has a higher baseline value now. People have money, hobbies, friends, porn, careers, travel, streaming, pets, etc. A full life without a partner. Marriage and kids used to be the default path. Now they’re optional.

So when you try to date a foid. You’re not just competing with other guys anymore. You’re competing with peace and quiet. With her apartment, her schedule, her Netflix, her girls trips, her sleep. If dating you adds stress, work, or limits freedom, she just stays single and calls it a win.

That’s the new bar. You don’t just have to beat other suitors. You have to beat solitude. If you don’t improve someone’s life more than their single routine, they won’t sign up (Klinenberg 2012).

The key to success is to find a niche or subculture or market you like and can do well then, become a perceived high-value member of that market (or at least to the locals you want to date in said market), couple with a desired partner who desires you back, and congratulations, you have an intimate relationship.

Elliot Rodger's folly was he tried to break into a very difficult, highly competitive market (gorgeous high-school/college blonde toilets and jocks). Despite having major failos like not being athletic, not being tall, not being muscular, not being NT, being half-asian but going for White foids, etc. If Elliot instead sexually competed in a less competitive market (say brunette beckies in small-town USA). He likely would have been married instead of being a killer. Hell, Elliot just waiting 5 years would have done wonders. He would have aged into a more general and less cliquish 20s dating market instead of the college frat boy market. And Hallyu Wave would make being Asian less failo when courting White roasties.

So yeah — thugmaxxing, moneymaxxing, prettyboy game, whatever — all of it can work. Just not everywhere.

Instead of obsessing over “why is he a Chad and I’m not,” look at the environment first. Different places reward different traits. Change the crowd and the hierarchy flips fast.

If you want a relationship — or just hookups — stop trying to dominate every scene. Find the one where your traits actually hit. Build status there. That’s where results come from, not from chasing universal approval.

Pick the right room and the whole game gets easier.

Works Cited​

• Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends. Annual Review of Sociology.
• Klinenberg, E. (2012). Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone. Penguin Books.
• Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of Gender. Yale University Press.
• Rudder, C. (2014). Dataclysm: Who We Are (When We Think No One's Looking). Crown.
• Schwartz, B. (2004). The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. Ecco.
• Cherlin, A. (2014). Labor’s Love Lost: The Rise and Fall of the Working‑Class Family in America.
• Group‑level pairing patterns and interracial dating asymmetries: Lewis, K. (2013). The limits of racial prejudice in dating networks.
• Historical variation in beauty standards: Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty.

 

[crazyguy]

THE CHAD MYTH​

By Aryan Li

There are countless games and theories when it comes to dating & hookups. Jestermaxx. Betabuxx. JBW Theory. BBC Theory. Oofy doofy. Pretty boy. Ogremaxxing, etc. There is endless debates on who is right and who is wrong. Each camp has their supporters and detractors. Many passionate arguments for each case. One day I realized that there was validity in these seemingly contradictory points. That these ideas and other concepts like halo/failo, ethnic tax, and countless others are right, but only in specific markets.

See, the sexual marketplace and sexual market value isn’t universal. Just like how there isn’t a universal price for apples. Valuation massively shifts based on location, competition, time period, and other factors (Kalmijn, M. (1998)). In addition, some markets like New York City are large and cosmopolitan. While others like a North Korean village are closed and small.

Each market has different wants & needs. Which is why different markets want irreconcilable traits. Like tan skin vs pale skin. Muscular bodies vs skinny bodies. Ideal height, etc. A man can be incel in one market and live like a Chad in another market. Hence geomaxxing.

Therefore, I conclude there actually is no universal Chad or Stacy. A Chad after all is just a man who is considered very sexually attractive and subsequently sexually successful. 1960s Mick Jagger looks nothing like male models and probably couldn’t fuck Instagram models if he was de-aged and lost his fame. But see, that doesn’t matter. In his sexual market, his looks, money, and status allowed him to bed 700+ women. The many 3rd Worlders who probably thought he looked like a low-t faggot (if they were aware of him) had 0 impact on his local SMV. Because they never were in his sexual market to begin with.

A better example is this Persian woman:

That woman right here is a Stacy. Yes she’s fat. And has a mustache. And looks like a dumb sandnigger. Doesn’t matter. Many men found her sexually attractive. And that’s all it takes to be a Stacy. Nobody except celebrities have to sexually appeal to billions of people. They only have to appeal to those in their network. You can look through countless sex symbols and beauty queens of yesteryear and see how they compare to the roasties of modern times. Some do great and others, not so much (Lorber, 1994). Each market has its own winners and losers based on its internal value structure and other factors. Although there are certainly Chads and Stacies who have far greater mass appeal thanks to good health and other factors.

A lot of takes mess up by treating dating apps like they’re real life. They’re not. They’re a weird, artificial environment with its own rules.

On apps you’re basically a trading card. Photos first, everything else second. Five seconds of attention, max. That setup massively favors the super photogenic, hyper-confident type. The classic “Chad” thrives there because the system is built around snap judgments, not familiarity, comfort, or reputation.

Real life isn’t like that. In person people see you repeatedly. Personality stacks over time. Humor matters. Reliability matters. Social proof matters. Money and stability matter more once things leave swipe-mode and enter actual life.

Also the userbase itself isn’t normal. The apps don’t sample the whole population. They sample a specific slice. More short-term oriented, more novelty seeking, more recently single, more validation chasing. Plenty of couples, quieter people, and routine-oriented folks just aren’t on there at all Barry Schwartz (2004).

I’ll go even further. There’s no single “true” mating market. Never was. Same way there’s no perfectly unbiased person.

People don’t exist in a vacuum. Every environment tilts behavior. Big city vs small town. College vs workplace. Party scene vs church. Online vs real life. Change the setting and people’s standards, priorities, and dealbreakers shift with it.

So when guys talk about “what women want” like it’s one universal rulebook, that’s the mistake. There isn’t one. There are a bunch of overlapping micro-markets, all nudging choices in different directions.

Nothing is neutral. The room always shapes the rules.

A key aspect of loneliness or undesirability is not just a person being considered low-value. But a person being considered low-value compared to their options. Take Exhibit B:

This is a Papua New Guinean man. Him and other Melanesians are widely considered the ugliest, most repulsive race to ever exist. 95% of this forum mogs not only this man, but the vast majority of Melanesian man, at least by the standards of Western women. Yet despite that fact, you will never see him or any other abo rotting on an incel forum. And that’s not just because they’re too likely too retarded and too poor to access it.

It’s because the New Guinean sexual market is closed. New Guineans exclusively marry each other because only they understand their lifestyle and culture and other stuff. That, and the women are literally just as repulsive as the men. To this man, his SMV in London is about as important as his SMV in the Andromeda Galaxy, utterly alien and irrelevant.

A huge cause of Asian male loneliness is not just their low SMV in Western dating markets, but their low SMV compared to their relative SMV of their women (although K-pop is slightly reversing this). South Asian men (or Pajeets) are seen as shit in western dating markets, but since few non-Indian men want pajeetas, NRIs just pair off with each other and remain endogamous. Rice men are low-rated, but East Asian women are highly valued in these markets. This SMV differential has led to noodlewhores becoming sluts & wives to White normie men while East Asian men being single despite being well educated and high earning (Rudder, 2014). SMV differentials lead to inceldom.

Zoom out and you see an even bigger reason loneliness is up and birth rates are down. Being single just has a higher baseline value now. People have money, hobbies, friends, porn, careers, travel, streaming, pets, etc. A full life without a partner. Marriage and kids used to be the default path. Now they’re optional.

So when you try to date a foid. You’re not just competing with other guys anymore. You’re competing with peace and quiet. With her apartment, her schedule, her Netflix, her girls trips, her sleep. If dating you adds stress, work, or limits freedom, she just stays single and calls it a win.

That’s the new bar. You don’t just have to beat other suitors. You have to beat solitude. If you don’t improve someone’s life more than their single routine, they won’t sign up (Klinenberg 2012).

The key to success is to find a niche or subculture or market you like and can do well then, become a perceived high-value member of that market (or at least to the locals you want to date in said market), couple with a desired partner who desires you back, and congratulations, you have an intimate relationship.

Elliot Rodger's folly was he tried to break into a very difficult, highly competitive market (gorgeous high-school/college blonde toilets and jocks). Despite having major failos like not being athletic, not being tall, not being muscular, not being NT, being half-asian but going for White foids, etc. If Elliot instead sexually competed in a less competitive market (say brunette beckies in small-town USA). He likely would have been married instead of being a killer. Hell, Elliot just waiting 5 years would have done wonders. He would have aged into a more general and less cliquish 20s dating market instead of the college frat boy market. And Hallyu Wave would make being Asian less failo when courting White roasties.

So yeah — thugmaxxing, moneymaxxing, prettyboy game, whatever — all of it can work. Just not everywhere.

Instead of obsessing over “why is he a Chad and I’m not,” look at the environment first. Different places reward different traits. Change the crowd and the hierarchy flips fast.

If you want a relationship — or just hookups — stop trying to dominate every scene. Find the one where your traits actually hit. Build status there. That’s where results come from, not from chasing universal approval.

Pick the right room and the whole game gets easier.

Works Cited​

• Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends. Annual Review of Sociology.
• Klinenberg, E. (2012). Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone. Penguin Books.
• Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of Gender. Yale University Press.
• Rudder, C. (2014). Dataclysm: Who We Are (When We Think No One's Looking). Crown.
• Schwartz, B. (2004). The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. Ecco.
• Cherlin, A. (2014). Labor’s Love Lost: The Rise and Fall of the Working‑Class Family in America.
• Group‑level pairing patterns and interracial dating asymmetries: Lewis, K. (2013). The limits of racial prejudice in dating networks.
• Historical variation in beauty standards: Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty.

the "woman" depicted as that princess is actually a man roleplaying.

 

[𝔻𝕠𝕨𝕟𝕨𝕒𝕣𝕕𝕘𝕣𝕠𝕨𝕥𝕙𝕔𝕖𝕝]

the "chad myth" no one gives a fuck about. DNR

 

[Deleted member 301467]

the "chad myth" no one gives a fuck about. DNR

Real

 

[Divineincel]

THE CHAD MYTH​

By Aryan Li

There are countless games and theories when it comes to dating & hookups. Jestermaxx. Betabuxx. JBW Theory. BBC Theory. Oofy doofy. Pretty boy. Ogremaxxing, etc. There is endless debates on who is right and who is wrong. Each camp has their supporters and detractors. Many passionate arguments for each case. One day I realized that there was validity in these seemingly contradictory points. That these ideas and other concepts like halo/failo, ethnic tax, and countless others are right, but only in specific markets.

See, the sexual marketplace and sexual market value isn’t universal. Just like how there isn’t a universal price for apples. Valuation massively shifts based on location, competition, time period, and other factors (Kalmijn, M. (1998)). In addition, some markets like New York City are large and cosmopolitan. While others like a North Korean village are closed and small.

Each market has different wants & needs. Which is why different markets want irreconcilable traits. Like tan skin vs pale skin. Muscular bodies vs skinny bodies. Ideal height, etc. A man can be incel in one market and live like a Chad in another market. Hence geomaxxing.

Therefore, I conclude there actually is no universal Chad or Stacy. A Chad after all is just a man who is considered very sexually attractive and subsequently sexually successful. 1960s Mick Jagger looks nothing like male models and probably couldn’t fuck Instagram models if he was de-aged and lost his fame. But see, that doesn’t matter. In his sexual market, his looks, money, and status allowed him to bed 700+ women. The many 3rd Worlders who probably thought he looked like a low-t faggot (if they were aware of him) had 0 impact on his local SMV. Because they never were in his sexual market to begin with.

A better example is this Persian woman:

That woman right here is a Stacy. Yes she’s fat. And has a mustache. And looks like a dumb sandnigger. Doesn’t matter. Many men found her sexually attractive. And that’s all it takes to be a Stacy. Nobody except celebrities have to sexually appeal to billions of people. They only have to appeal to those in their network. You can look through countless sex symbols and beauty queens of yesteryear and see how they compare to the roasties of modern times. Some do great and others, not so much (Lorber, 1994). Each market has its own winners and losers based on its internal value structure and other factors. Although there are certainly Chads and Stacies who have far greater mass appeal thanks to good health and other factors.

A lot of takes mess up by treating dating apps like they’re real life. They’re not. They’re a weird, artificial environment with its own rules.

On apps you’re basically a trading card. Photos first, everything else second. Five seconds of attention, max. That setup massively favors the super photogenic, hyper-confident type. The classic “Chad” thrives there because the system is built around snap judgments, not familiarity, comfort, or reputation.

Real life isn’t like that. In person people see you repeatedly. Personality stacks over time. Humor matters. Reliability matters. Social proof matters. Money and stability matter more once things leave swipe-mode and enter actual life.

Also the userbase itself isn’t normal. The apps don’t sample the whole population. They sample a specific slice. More short-term oriented, more novelty seeking, more recently single, more validation chasing. Plenty of couples, quieter people, and routine-oriented folks just aren’t on there at all Barry Schwartz (2004).

I’ll go even further. There’s no single “true” mating market. Never was. Same way there’s no perfectly unbiased person.

People don’t exist in a vacuum. Every environment tilts behavior. Big city vs small town. College vs workplace. Party scene vs church. Online vs real life. Change the setting and people’s standards, priorities, and dealbreakers shift with it.

So when guys talk about “what women want” like it’s one universal rulebook, that’s the mistake. There isn’t one. There are a bunch of overlapping micro-markets, all nudging choices in different directions.

Nothing is neutral. The room always shapes the rules.

A key aspect of loneliness or undesirability is not just a person being considered low-value. But a person being considered low-value compared to their options. Take Exhibit B:

This is a Papua New Guinean man. Him and other Melanesians are widely considered the ugliest, most repulsive race to ever exist. 95% of this forum mogs not only this man, but the vast majority of Melanesian man, at least by the standards of Western women. Yet despite that fact, you will never see him or any other abo rotting on an incel forum. And that’s not just because they’re too likely too retarded and too poor to access it.

It’s because the New Guinean sexual market is closed. New Guineans exclusively marry each other because only they understand their lifestyle and culture and other stuff. That, and the women are literally just as repulsive as the men. To this man, his SMV in London is about as important as his SMV in the Andromeda Galaxy, utterly alien and irrelevant.

A huge cause of Asian male loneliness is not just their low SMV in Western dating markets, but their low SMV compared to their relative SMV of their women (although K-pop is slightly reversing this). South Asian men (or Pajeets) are seen as shit in western dating markets, but since few non-Indian men want pajeetas, NRIs just pair off with each other and remain endogamous. Rice men are low-rated, but East Asian women are highly valued in these markets. This SMV differential has led to noodlewhores becoming sluts & wives to White normie men while East Asian men being single despite being well educated and high earning (Rudder, 2014). SMV differentials lead to inceldom.

Zoom out and you see an even bigger reason loneliness is up and birth rates are down. Being single just has a higher baseline value now. People have money, hobbies, friends, porn, careers, travel, streaming, pets, etc. A full life without a partner. Marriage and kids used to be the default path. Now they’re optional.

So when you try to date a foid. You’re not just competing with other guys anymore. You’re competing with peace and quiet. With her apartment, her schedule, her Netflix, her girls trips, her sleep. If dating you adds stress, work, or limits freedom, she just stays single and calls it a win.

That’s the new bar. You don’t just have to beat other suitors. You have to beat solitude. If you don’t improve someone’s life more than their single routine, they won’t sign up (Klinenberg 2012).

The key to success is to find a niche or subculture or market you like and can do well then, become a perceived high-value member of that market (or at least to the locals you want to date in said market), couple with a desired partner who desires you back, and congratulations, you have an intimate relationship.

Elliot Rodger's folly was he tried to break into a very difficult, highly competitive market (gorgeous high-school/college blonde toilets and jocks). Despite having major failos like not being athletic, not being tall, not being muscular, not being NT, being half-asian but going for White foids, etc. If Elliot instead sexually competed in a less competitive market (say brunette beckies in small-town USA). He likely would have been married instead of being a killer. Hell, Elliot just waiting 5 years would have done wonders. He would have aged into a more general and less cliquish 20s dating market instead of the college frat boy market. And Hallyu Wave would make being Asian less failo when courting White roasties.

So yeah — thugmaxxing, moneymaxxing, prettyboy game, whatever — all of it can work. Just not everywhere.

Instead of obsessing over “why is he a Chad and I’m not,” look at the environment first. Different places reward different traits. Change the crowd and the hierarchy flips fast.

If you want a relationship — or just hookups — stop trying to dominate every scene. Find the one where your traits actually hit. Build status there. That’s where results come from, not from chasing universal approval.

Pick the right room and the whole game gets easier.

Works Cited​

• Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends. Annual Review of Sociology.
• Klinenberg, E. (2012). Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone. Penguin Books.
• Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of Gender. Yale University Press.
• Rudder, C. (2014). Dataclysm: Who We Are (When We Think No One's Looking). Crown.
• Schwartz, B. (2004). The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. Ecco.
• Cherlin, A. (2014). Labor’s Love Lost: The Rise and Fall of the Working‑Class Family in America.
• Group‑level pairing patterns and interracial dating asymmetries: Lewis, K. (2013). The limits of racial prejudice in dating networks.
• Historical variation in beauty standards: Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty.

If you are sub4, then go to the place where everyone is sub4 bro

 

[blocklandchud]

bump this is genuinely one of the best threads ive seen in a while