Winner Takes All & Final State Capitalism

[noodlelover]

Income Inequality is Increases every decade.

Spoiler: Data & Sources

The Middle Class Is gradually disappearing since 1980.

Global inequality has been increasing since at least 1820. The Strange pattern you see towards the end is the rise of the internet, and the outsourcing of jobs, manufacturing, farming, and production. Between country inequality decreases, with outsourcing. This temporarily effects total inequality.

And then total inequality begins increasing again.

Dating Inequality Increases every decade.

Spoiler: Data & Sources

Marriage Rates are decreasing decade after decade.

Another Source, showing marriage rates declining year over year, since at least 1960

percent of single women that wait their turn to get fucked by Chad once every couple years, while staying single is increasing.

(Above). Males without sex in the last year has been steadily increasing since about 2012, when dating apps began to go mainstream. This coincides with an increase year of year, of crime rate in the U.S. that began around 2012. There's tons of literature showing over, and over that more male sexual poverty leads to greater crime.

I could have added more graphs, but so far few people would disagree with the premise. As the world becomes more, and more interconnected, an increasingly small percentage of men take more and more mates and money, leaving every other man in financial and romantic destitution.

Spoiler: The Trends are Exponential not linear

When you look at all of these graphs, where you only see data for at most around a century, you may be mistakenly believe the patterns are linear, not exponential.

But even though we don't have the data, we can extrapolate from our historical knowledge to see that this trend began centuries ago.

The puritan age was from 1625-1660. If you had sex with some one other than your marriage partner, the penalty was death. In 1692 Divorce was legalizing in the Massachusetts bay colony.

With Divorce comes the start of serial marriage monogamy. Multiple women, taking turns being married to a single man. This hypergamy is our natural state and religion was the only thing preventing many women from taking turns sharing a single man. This is because the biological cost is much higher for women to give birth than men, so women are by nature more selective.

When you look at these trend lines and realize they started much earlier, in the late 1600s, you also realize they have to be exponentially increasing to fit.

Punctuated Equilibrium hides and obfuscates the exponential nature of the trendlines on smaller scale muliti-decade long graphs.

You can read about what punctuated equilibrium is elsewhere if you don't get it. But essentially evolution, including cultural, societal, and technological evolution hits inflection points where the rate of change becomes much faster.

When it comes to economic inequality a sample of those inflection points are:

• 4000 B.C. - Invention of Roads. - Transportation of goods meant wealth could be accumulated much more by fewer and fewer people.
• 1900 B.C. - First Horse Drawn Carriage - Transportation of more goods
• 300 B.C. - Indian Ocean Trade Routes Established connecting India, Arabia, East Africa
• 1832 - Invention of the Telegram - Fast Data Transfer across the world means data production and processing (all thinking jobs), can begin to be exported to other countries, rather than sticking with local talent. This leads to a smaller and smaller percentage of people making the most money.
• 1982 - Invention of the Internet. - Competition starts to become global, leading to fewer and fewer winners, amongst global competition.

When you zoom out to look at a period of thousands of years, you see that economic inequality is on a exponential trend.

When it comes to dating inequality some of those punctuated equilibrium inflection points are:

• 4000 B.C. - Invention of Roads
• The Spread of English
• Increase in transportation
• 1962 - Divorce starts to become legal in the U.S. More Divorce means fewer women taking turns to marry fewer men.
• 1848 - Feminist movement begins in the U.S. More Jobs for women mean women can be more selective about who they marry, choosing to take turns dating and marrying fewer men.
• 2012 or so - Dating Apps go Main Stream. Women can now order the the best looking Chads in their area to their home. At this point, women have no financial, or even entertainment need for men, and more and more women adopt the strategy to fuck Chad once every couple years, while Chad fucks multiple girls a day (I've met multiple Chads that do this), and over a hundred, or in some cases hundreds a year. This isn't speculation, you see this inflection point in the data.

With this zoomed out perspective you realize it's exponential.

The faster transfer of data and goods around the world, inevitable leads to a smaller and smaller percentage of men accumulating more and more power, more and more resources, and more and more women, at an exponential pace leaving the rest of us destitute or near destitute.

Money, Power, and Knowledge is used to accumulate more money, power and knowledge in a feedback loop, which leads to this exponential change.

Spoiler: Where is this headed

The trend is clear. We are headed towards a very small number of men, that will have near god like power.

We will have super-intelligent Ai, more intelligent than all humans. The more money you have, the more tasks and queries you can give these Ais. Capital will transmutate into intelligent and intelligence will transmutate into capital (such as Ai running and starting business, sabotaging competition, playing the stock market, etc.) with near perfect liquidity. Capital, Intelligence, and Power will be for all practical purposes, a single quantifiable resource.

This fluidity of capital and intelligence, means the richest most powerful men will also be the best looking, most charismatic, highest status, and highest SMV. They will not age because they will have machines that de-age their blood and tissues. Ai Super Intelligence will be able to transform their bodies via surgeries, and other technology into living PSL Gods. Then Ai's will create the most entertaining possible content with them in it, to get their persona and faces in front of billions of women world wide. The Ai's will also talk to these women and arrange dates, and convince these women to do threesomes and foursomes, and moresomes, using artificial super manipulation.

These gods will be able to swim in literal oceans of Stacie's. Who go with their friends to giant orgies, of all Stacie's, and one of these guys, where all of the women are hoping to touch him. Like screaming members of a cult conditioned to love and want sex with their cult leader, more than life itself.

The rest of us, on the other hand will struggle to feed ourselves, and be gunned down by slaughter bots if we attempt to revolt. The rest of us will live in what will be like Gaza, constant bombings, with any Stacie's being rescued and evacuated from the area by robots to live in mega mansions waiting their entire lives for whatever God owns them to come sleep with them. Not unlike Kim Jong Un (leader of north Korea), and the women that wait in houses around the country their entire lives staying virgins to sleep with him and serve him.

Yes, we will have Ai girlfriends on our phones, but it's unlikely that we'll be able to afford sex robots, when we are living off donations of rice, and the trillionaires that pay for it, consider themselves our saviors.

If UBI comes, it will be barely enough for us to live, because all of us will be no match for Super intelligent slaughter bots.

This is not hyperbolic. The exponential trend lines are clear. This is your last chance to become one of the gods, otherwise you will be like the 99.999% of men hungry, destitute, living in squalor, without ever seeing a real or robotic woman, waiting to bombed from the sky, with your Ai girlfriends on your phones being your only comfort.

 

[PsychoH]

Income Inequality is Increases every decade.

Spoiler: Data & Sources

View attachment 2923397

The Middle Class Is gradually disappearing since 1980.

Global inequality has been increasing since at least 1820. The Strange pattern you see towards the end is the rise of the internet, and the outsourcing of jobs, manufacturing, farming, and production. Between country inequality decreases, with outsourcing. This temporarily effects total inequality.

And then total inequality begins increasing again.

Dating Inequality Increases every decade.

Spoiler: Data & Sources

Marriage Rates are decreasing decade after decade.

View attachment 2923420

Another Source, showing marriage rates declining year over year, since at least 1960

View attachment 2923402

percent of single women that wait their turn to get fucked by Chad once every couple years, while staying single is increasing.
View attachment 2923406

View attachment 2923409
(Above). Males without sex in the last year has been steadily increasing since about 2012, when dating apps began to go mainstream. This coincides with an increase year of year, of crime rate in the U.S. that began around 2012. There's tons of literature showing over, and over that more male sexual poverty leads to greater crime.

I could have added more graphs, but so far few people would disagree with the premise. As the world becomes more, and more interconnected, an increasingly small percentage of men take more and more mates and money, leaving every other man in financial and romantic destitution.

Spoiler: The Trends are Exponential not linear

When you look at all of these graphs, where you only see data for at most around a century, you may be mistakenly believe the patterns are linear, not exponential.

But even though we don't have the data, we can extrapolate from our historical knowledge to see that this trend began centuries ago.

The puritan age was from 1625-1660. If you had sex with some one other than your marriage partner, the penalty was death. In 1692 Divorce was legalizing in the Massachusetts bay colony.

With Divorce comes the start of serial marriage monogamy. Multiple women, taking turns being married to a single man. This hypergamy is our natural state and religion was the only thing preventing many women from taking turns sharing a single man. This is because the biological cost is much higher for women to give birth than men, so women are by nature more selective.

When you look at these trend lines and realize they started much earlier, in the late 1600s, you also realize they have to be exponentially increasing to fit.

Punctuated Equilibrium hides and obfuscates the exponential nature of the trendlines on smaller scale muliti-decade long graphs.

You can read about what punctuated equilibrium is elsewhere if you don't get it. But essentially evolution, including cultural, societal, and technological evolution hits inflection points where the rate of change becomes much faster.

When it comes to economic inequality a sample of those inflection points are:

• 4000 B.C. - Invention of Roads. - Transportation of goods meant wealth could be accumulated much more by fewer and fewer people.
• 1900 B.C. - First Horse Drawn Carriage - Transportation of more goods
• 300 B.C. - Indian Ocean Trade Routes Established connecting India, Arabia, East Africa
• 1832 - Invention of the Telegram - Fast Data Transfer across the world means data production and processing (all thinking jobs), can begin to be exported to other countries, rather than sticking with local talent. This leads to a smaller and smaller percentage of people making the most money.
• 1982 - Invention of the Internet. - Competition starts to become global, leading to fewer and fewer winners, amongst global competition.

When you zoom out to look at a period of thousands of years, you see that economic inequality is on a exponential trend.

When it comes to dating inequality some of those punctuated equilibrium inflection points are:

• 4000 B.C. - Invention of Roads
• The Spread of English
• Increase in transportation
• 1962 - Divorce starts to become legal in the U.S. More Divorce means fewer women taking turns to marry fewer men.
• 1848 - Feminist movement begins in the U.S. More Jobs for women mean women can be more selective about who they marry, choosing to take turns dating and marrying fewer men.
• 2012 or so - Dating Apps go Main Stream. Women can now order the the best looking Chads in their area to their home. At this point, women have no financial, or even entertainment need for men, and more and more women adopt the strategy to fuck Chad once every couple years, while Chad fucks multiple girls a day (I've met multiple Chads that do this), and over a hundred, or in some cases hundreds a year. This isn't speculation, you see this inflection point in the data.

With this zoomed out perspective you realize it's exponential.

The faster transfer of data and goods around the world, inevitable leads to a smaller and smaller percentage of men accumulating more and more power, more and more resources, and more and more women, at an exponential pace leaving the rest of us destitute or near destitute.

Money, Power, and Knowledge is used to accumulate more money, power and knowledge in a feedback loop, which leads to this exponential change.

Spoiler: Where is this headed

The trend is clear. We are headed towards a very small number of men, that will have near god like power.

We will have super-intelligent Ai, more intelligent than all humans. The more money you have, the more tasks and queries you can gives these Ais. Capital with transmutation into intelligent and intelligence will transmutation into capital (such as Ai running and starting business, sabotaging competition, playing the stock market, etc.)

This fluidity of capital and intelligence, means the richest most powerful men will also be the best looking, most charismatic, highest status, and highest SMV. They will not age because they will have machines that de-age their blood and tissues. Ai Super Intelligence will be able to transform their bodies via surgeries, and other technology into living PSL Gods. Then Ai's will create the most entertaining possible content with them in it, to get their persona and faces in front of billions of women world wide. The Ai's will also talk to these women and arrange dates, and convince these women to do threesomes and foursomes, and foursomes, using artificial super manipulation.

These gods will be able to swim in literal oceans of Stacie's. Who go with their friends to giant orgies, of all Stacie's, and one of these guys, where all of the women are hoping to touch him. Like screaming members of a cult conditioned to love and want sex with their cult leader, more than life itself.

The rest of us, on the other hand will struggle to feed ourselves, and be gunned down by slaughter bots is we attempt to revolt. The rest of us will live in what will be like Gaza, constant bombings, with any Stacie's being rescued and evacuated from the area by robots to live in mega mansions waiting their entire lives for whatever God owns them to come sleep with them. Not unlike Kim Jong Un (leader of north Korea), and the women that wait in houses around the country their entire lives staying virgins to sleep with him and serve him.

Yes, we will have Ai girlfriends on our phones, but it's unlikely that we'll be able to afford sex robots, when we are living off donations of rice, and the trillionaires that pay for it, consider themselves our saviors.

If UBI comes, it will be barely enough for us to live, because all of us will be no match for Super intelligent slaughter bots.

This is not hyperbolic. The exponential trend lines are clear. This is your last chance to become one of the gods, otherwise you will be like the 99.999% of men hungry, destitute, living in squalor, without ever seeing a real or robotic woman, waiting to bombed from the sky, with your Ai girlfriends on your phones being your only comfort.

winner really takes it all, rest is fucked

 

[PsychoH]

gotta prepare those graphs shit

 

[Youㅤ]

must richmax

 

[xegigi]

high iq thread

 

[noodlelover]

must richmax

It's literally the only way. Money will have the best convergence to anti-aging, Looks-maxing, power, mates, survival, and more moneymaking opportunities.

Without it, no Chad will last (aging, poor food quality, etc.), and no Chad will be competitive.

 

[noodlelover]

must richmax

Oh and BTW, if you just own a good chunk of a broad spectrum index fund before Ai automates all the jobs, you'll be able to live off that comfortable without being in the top 0.0001%.

That's the most realistic path for most people who want to live a good life and afford some of the anti-aging therapies. If you are living pay check to paycheck when automation goes nuclear, RIP.

 

[nakus]

isnt this common sense

 

[KpopmaxxingGuy]

Income Inequality is Increases every decade.

Spoiler: Data & Sources

View attachment 2923397

The Middle Class Is gradually disappearing since 1980.

Global inequality has been increasing since at least 1820. The Strange pattern you see towards the end is the rise of the internet, and the outsourcing of jobs, manufacturing, farming, and production. Between country inequality decreases, with outsourcing. This temporarily effects total inequality.

And then total inequality begins increasing again.

Dating Inequality Increases every decade.

Spoiler: Data & Sources

Marriage Rates are decreasing decade after decade.

View attachment 2923420

Another Source, showing marriage rates declining year over year, since at least 1960

View attachment 2923402

percent of single women that wait their turn to get fucked by Chad once every couple years, while staying single is increasing.
View attachment 2923406

View attachment 2923409
(Above). Males without sex in the last year has been steadily increasing since about 2012, when dating apps began to go mainstream. This coincides with an increase year of year, of crime rate in the U.S. that began around 2012. There's tons of literature showing over, and over that more male sexual poverty leads to greater crime.

I could have added more graphs, but so far few people would disagree with the premise. As the world becomes more, and more interconnected, an increasingly small percentage of men take more and more mates and money, leaving every other man in financial and romantic destitution.

Spoiler: The Trends are Exponential not linear

When you look at all of these graphs, where you only see data for at most around a century, you may be mistakenly believe the patterns are linear, not exponential.

But even though we don't have the data, we can extrapolate from our historical knowledge to see that this trend began centuries ago.

The puritan age was from 1625-1660. If you had sex with some one other than your marriage partner, the penalty was death. In 1692 Divorce was legalizing in the Massachusetts bay colony.

With Divorce comes the start of serial marriage monogamy. Multiple women, taking turns being married to a single man. This hypergamy is our natural state and religion was the only thing preventing many women from taking turns sharing a single man. This is because the biological cost is much higher for women to give birth than men, so women are by nature more selective.

When you look at these trend lines and realize they started much earlier, in the late 1600s, you also realize they have to be exponentially increasing to fit.

Punctuated Equilibrium hides and obfuscates the exponential nature of the trendlines on smaller scale muliti-decade long graphs.

You can read about what punctuated equilibrium is elsewhere if you don't get it. But essentially evolution, including cultural, societal, and technological evolution hits inflection points where the rate of change becomes much faster.

When it comes to economic inequality a sample of those inflection points are:

• 4000 B.C. - Invention of Roads. - Transportation of goods meant wealth could be accumulated much more by fewer and fewer people.
• 1900 B.C. - First Horse Drawn Carriage - Transportation of more goods
• 300 B.C. - Indian Ocean Trade Routes Established connecting India, Arabia, East Africa
• 1832 - Invention of the Telegram - Fast Data Transfer across the world means data production and processing (all thinking jobs), can begin to be exported to other countries, rather than sticking with local talent. This leads to a smaller and smaller percentage of people making the most money.
• 1982 - Invention of the Internet. - Competition starts to become global, leading to fewer and fewer winners, amongst global competition.

When you zoom out to look at a period of thousands of years, you see that economic inequality is on a exponential trend.

When it comes to dating inequality some of those punctuated equilibrium inflection points are:

• 4000 B.C. - Invention of Roads
• The Spread of English
• Increase in transportation
• 1962 - Divorce starts to become legal in the U.S. More Divorce means fewer women taking turns to marry fewer men.
• 1848 - Feminist movement begins in the U.S. More Jobs for women mean women can be more selective about who they marry, choosing to take turns dating and marrying fewer men.
• 2012 or so - Dating Apps go Main Stream. Women can now order the the best looking Chads in their area to their home. At this point, women have no financial, or even entertainment need for men, and more and more women adopt the strategy to fuck Chad once every couple years, while Chad fucks multiple girls a day (I've met multiple Chads that do this), and over a hundred, or in some cases hundreds a year. This isn't speculation, you see this inflection point in the data.

With this zoomed out perspective you realize it's exponential.

The faster transfer of data and goods around the world, inevitable leads to a smaller and smaller percentage of men accumulating more and more power, more and more resources, and more and more women, at an exponential pace leaving the rest of us destitute or near destitute.

Money, Power, and Knowledge is used to accumulate more money, power and knowledge in a feedback loop, which leads to this exponential change.

Spoiler: Where is this headed

The trend is clear. We are headed towards a very small number of men, that will have near god like power.

We will have super-intelligent Ai, more intelligent than all humans. The more money you have, the more tasks and queries you can give these Ais. Capital will transmutate into intelligent and intelligence will transmutate into capital (such as Ai running and starting business, sabotaging competition, playing the stock market, etc.) with near perfect liquidity. Capital, Intelligence, and Power will be for all practical purposes, a single quantifiable resource.

This fluidity of capital and intelligence, means the richest most powerful men will also be the best looking, most charismatic, highest status, and highest SMV. They will not age because they will have machines that de-age their blood and tissues. Ai Super Intelligence will be able to transform their bodies via surgeries, and other technology into living PSL Gods. Then Ai's will create the most entertaining possible content with them in it, to get their persona and faces in front of billions of women world wide. The Ai's will also talk to these women and arrange dates, and convince these women to do threesomes and foursomes, and moresomes, using artificial super manipulation.

These gods will be able to swim in literal oceans of Stacie's. Who go with their friends to giant orgies, of all Stacie's, and one of these guys, where all of the women are hoping to touch him. Like screaming members of a cult conditioned to love and want sex with their cult leader, more than life itself.

The rest of us, on the other hand will struggle to feed ourselves, and be gunned down by slaughter bots if we attempt to revolt. The rest of us will live in what will be like Gaza, constant bombings, with any Stacie's being rescued and evacuated from the area by robots to live in mega mansions waiting their entire lives for whatever God owns them to come sleep with them. Not unlike Kim Jong Un (leader of north Korea), and the women that wait in houses around the country their entire lives staying virgins to sleep with him and serve him.

Yes, we will have Ai girlfriends on our phones, but it's unlikely that we'll be able to afford sex robots, when we are living off donations of rice, and the trillionaires that pay for it, consider themselves our saviors.

If UBI comes, it will be barely enough for us to live, because all of us will be no match for Super intelligent slaughter bots.

This is not hyperbolic. The exponential trend lines are clear. This is your last chance to become one of the gods, otherwise you will be like the 99.999% of men hungry, destitute, living in squalor, without ever seeing a real or robotic woman, waiting to bombed from the sky, with your Ai girlfriends on your phones being your only comfort.

What does your data show about mobility within the dating market. Is it possible to become the winner no matter where you start?

 

[JOJOcelReturns]

Income Inequality is Increases every decade.

Spoiler: Data & Sources

View attachment 2923397

The Middle Class Is gradually disappearing since 1980.

Global inequality has been increasing since at least 1820. The Strange pattern you see towards the end is the rise of the internet, and the outsourcing of jobs, manufacturing, farming, and production. Between country inequality decreases, with outsourcing. This temporarily effects total inequality.

And then total inequality begins increasing again.

Dating Inequality Increases every decade.

Spoiler: Data & Sources

Marriage Rates are decreasing decade after decade.

View attachment 2923420

Another Source, showing marriage rates declining year over year, since at least 1960

View attachment 2923402

percent of single women that wait their turn to get fucked by Chad once every couple years, while staying single is increasing.
View attachment 2923406

View attachment 2923409
(Above). Males without sex in the last year has been steadily increasing since about 2012, when dating apps began to go mainstream. This coincides with an increase year of year, of crime rate in the U.S. that began around 2012. There's tons of literature showing over, and over that more male sexual poverty leads to greater crime.

I could have added more graphs, but so far few people would disagree with the premise. As the world becomes more, and more interconnected, an increasingly small percentage of men take more and more mates and money, leaving every other man in financial and romantic destitution.

Spoiler: The Trends are Exponential not linear

When you look at all of these graphs, where you only see data for at most around a century, you may be mistakenly believe the patterns are linear, not exponential.

But even though we don't have the data, we can extrapolate from our historical knowledge to see that this trend began centuries ago.

The puritan age was from 1625-1660. If you had sex with some one other than your marriage partner, the penalty was death. In 1692 Divorce was legalizing in the Massachusetts bay colony.

With Divorce comes the start of serial marriage monogamy. Multiple women, taking turns being married to a single man. This hypergamy is our natural state and religion was the only thing preventing many women from taking turns sharing a single man. This is because the biological cost is much higher for women to give birth than men, so women are by nature more selective.

When you look at these trend lines and realize they started much earlier, in the late 1600s, you also realize they have to be exponentially increasing to fit.

Punctuated Equilibrium hides and obfuscates the exponential nature of the trendlines on smaller scale muliti-decade long graphs.

You can read about what punctuated equilibrium is elsewhere if you don't get it. But essentially evolution, including cultural, societal, and technological evolution hits inflection points where the rate of change becomes much faster.

When it comes to economic inequality a sample of those inflection points are:

• 4000 B.C. - Invention of Roads. - Transportation of goods meant wealth could be accumulated much more by fewer and fewer people.
• 1900 B.C. - First Horse Drawn Carriage - Transportation of more goods
• 300 B.C. - Indian Ocean Trade Routes Established connecting India, Arabia, East Africa
• 1832 - Invention of the Telegram - Fast Data Transfer across the world means data production and processing (all thinking jobs), can begin to be exported to other countries, rather than sticking with local talent. This leads to a smaller and smaller percentage of people making the most money.
• 1982 - Invention of the Internet. - Competition starts to become global, leading to fewer and fewer winners, amongst global competition.

When you zoom out to look at a period of thousands of years, you see that economic inequality is on a exponential trend.

When it comes to dating inequality some of those punctuated equilibrium inflection points are:

• 4000 B.C. - Invention of Roads
• The Spread of English
• Increase in transportation
• 1962 - Divorce starts to become legal in the U.S. More Divorce means fewer women taking turns to marry fewer men.
• 1848 - Feminist movement begins in the U.S. More Jobs for women mean women can be more selective about who they marry, choosing to take turns dating and marrying fewer men.
• 2012 or so - Dating Apps go Main Stream. Women can now order the the best looking Chads in their area to their home. At this point, women have no financial, or even entertainment need for men, and more and more women adopt the strategy to fuck Chad once every couple years, while Chad fucks multiple girls a day (I've met multiple Chads that do this), and over a hundred, or in some cases hundreds a year. This isn't speculation, you see this inflection point in the data.

With this zoomed out perspective you realize it's exponential.

The faster transfer of data and goods around the world, inevitable leads to a smaller and smaller percentage of men accumulating more and more power, more and more resources, and more and more women, at an exponential pace leaving the rest of us destitute or near destitute.

Money, Power, and Knowledge is used to accumulate more money, power and knowledge in a feedback loop, which leads to this exponential change.

Spoiler: Where is this headed

The trend is clear. We are headed towards a very small number of men, that will have near god like power.

We will have super-intelligent Ai, more intelligent than all humans. The more money you have, the more tasks and queries you can give these Ais. Capital will transmutate into intelligent and intelligence will transmutate into capital (such as Ai running and starting business, sabotaging competition, playing the stock market, etc.) with near perfect liquidity. Capital, Intelligence, and Power will be for all practical purposes, a single quantifiable resource.

This fluidity of capital and intelligence, means the richest most powerful men will also be the best looking, most charismatic, highest status, and highest SMV. They will not age because they will have machines that de-age their blood and tissues. Ai Super Intelligence will be able to transform their bodies via surgeries, and other technology into living PSL Gods. Then Ai's will create the most entertaining possible content with them in it, to get their persona and faces in front of billions of women world wide. The Ai's will also talk to these women and arrange dates, and convince these women to do threesomes and foursomes, and moresomes, using artificial super manipulation.

These gods will be able to swim in literal oceans of Stacie's. Who go with their friends to giant orgies, of all Stacie's, and one of these guys, where all of the women are hoping to touch him. Like screaming members of a cult conditioned to love and want sex with their cult leader, more than life itself.

The rest of us, on the other hand will struggle to feed ourselves, and be gunned down by slaughter bots if we attempt to revolt. The rest of us will live in what will be like Gaza, constant bombings, with any Stacie's being rescued and evacuated from the area by robots to live in mega mansions waiting their entire lives for whatever God owns them to come sleep with them. Not unlike Kim Jong Un (leader of north Korea), and the women that wait in houses around the country their entire lives staying virgins to sleep with him and serve him.

Yes, we will have Ai girlfriends on our phones, but it's unlikely that we'll be able to afford sex robots, when we are living off donations of rice, and the trillionaires that pay for it, consider themselves our saviors.

If UBI comes, it will be barely enough for us to live, because all of us will be no match for Super intelligent slaughter bots.

This is not hyperbolic. The exponential trend lines are clear. This is your last chance to become one of the gods, otherwise you will be like the 99.999% of men hungry, destitute, living in squalor, without ever seeing a real or robotic woman, waiting to bombed from the sky, with your Ai girlfriends on your phones being your only comfort.

You present good points but dating apps didn't affect that much. It's a niche that the majority of women don't take seriously or use. However, social media changed forever dating.

 

[noodlelover]

What does your data show about mobility within the dating market. Is it possible to become the winner no matter where you start?

I haven't found any hard data, but I can still infer.

When it comes to wealth, how rich your parents are is a much better predictor of your success, than your intelligence or your grades. (Source). Your grades are a good proxy of your work ethic, so we can say the "Luck" of having rich parents matters more than hard work and intelligence.

Looksmaxing requires money, to fully max out. Surgeries, devices, dental, red light therapy, oxygen tanks, hair systems, hair transplants, hair loss drugs, anti-aging stacks, full body red light devices, blood bio-marker tracking, meal plans, high quality food, all requires money.

And genetics determine your base, and your childhood largely determines things like height, frame, and NTness.

Status is also largely determined by money. If you want to status max by becoming a famous youtuber, there's a very low chance you'll be able to do that, part time after your job. The most successful youtubers were full time for years and years before they made any money, which itself requires money to live, and buy expensive cameras, and production equipment. Other status maxes also all require money, or time (which requires money to live).

So the chance of changing your SMV significantly is low, but we've seen examples of it. Mostly those examples come from people with the money to at least looksmax.

My perspective is just because the chance of success is low, even after accounting for hard work, persistence, and intelligence doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

Ultimately everything in nature struggles for survival, and most things die despite their best efforts. We can find peace in struggle and peace in death, but there is no peace in rotting.

 

[KpopmaxxingGuy]

I haven't found any hard data, but I can still infer.

When it comes to wealth, how rich your parents are is a much better predictor of your success, than your intelligence or your grades. (Source). Your grades are a good proxy of your work ethic, so we can say the "Luck" of having rich parents matters more than hard work and intelligence.

Looksmaxing requires money, to fully max out. Surgeries, devices, dental, red light therapy, oxygen tanks, hair systems, hair transplants, hair loss drugs, anti-aging stacks, full body red light devices, blood bio-marker tracking, meal plans, high quality food, all requires money.

And genetics determine your base, and your childhood largely determines things like height, frame, and NTness.

Status is also largely determined by money. If you want to status max by becoming a famous youtuber, there's a very low chance you'll be able to do that, part time after your job. The most successful youtubers were full time for years and years before they made any money, which itself requires money to live, and buy expensive cameras, and production equipment. Other status maxes also all require money, or time (which requires money to live).

So the chance of changing your SMV significantly is low, but we've seen examples of it. Mostly those examples come from people with the money to at least looksmax.

My perspective is just because the chance of success is low, even after accounting for hard work, persistence, and intelligence doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

Ultimately everything in nature struggles for survival, and most things die despite their best efforts. We can find peace in struggle and peace in death, but there is no peace in rotting.

Very well put together response.

You mention how genetics determines your base. How much do those factors play a role? What should be done in the pursuit of becoming chad before someone calls it quits?

 

[tallnegga]

Dude graphs? Really bro? Don’t you know that if you work hard you will get ahead? That’s how capitalism works. Every hard worker is now living a great happy life with abundance. This is what Dave Ramsey keeps telling everyone and they won’t believe it. Just workkkkk hardddd and nevaaaaaah give up

 

[tallnegga]

 

[noodlelover]

Very well put together response.

You mention how genetics determines your base. How much do those factors play a role?

I really don't know. I personally don't think most people come anywhere near their potential, because life improvement requires more suffering for longer than most people can handle.

What should be done in the pursuit of becoming chad before someone calls it quits?

10%-13% bodyfat, Muscles, Clear Skin, Surgeries to correct any big deformities (if you have any).

imho, most people who achieve this are pretty close to their max.

After that it makes more sense to shift most of your energy to maxing out money, status, and game.

 

[KpopmaxxingGuy]

I really don't know. I personally don't think most people come anywhere near their potential, because life improvement requires more suffering for longer than most people can handle.

10%-13% bodyfat, Muscles, Clear Skin, Surgeries to correct any big deformities (if you have any).

imho, most people who achieve this are pretty close to their max.

After that it makes more sense to shift most of your energy to maxing out money, status, and game.

Would you say those softmaxxes can be used to counter the facepill, heightpill, racepill to a significant enough degree? How much credence do you give to those people who call these things cope?

 

[Dickdazzler]

not a single word lil bro

 

[noodlelover]

Would you say those softmaxxes can be used to counter the facepill, heightpill, racepill to a significant enough degree? How much credence do you give to those people who call these things cope?

Looksmaxing alone won't ascend most guys, unless you count smashing fat ugly sweaty feminists.

People here, and on the incel website have done dating app experiments with 300 lb middle aged women, and gotten hundreds of matches, and a dozen or so looks maxed (muscles, low bodyfat, clear skin) guys, that were respectful and wanted to date her.

So most guys HAVE to combine lookingmaxing with maxes, like status max, money max, game max, and NT max. So the chance of success is pretty fucking low because it's hard to be the top in so many different categories at the same time, but not impossible.

So take Mr. Beast, a 6'2" white normie, that probably works out and is mostly looksmaxed. He has a hot girlfriend because he has a net worth of about 500 million and was the biggest youtuber for a while.

Then you have some one like Markiplier. Muscular, 5'10 Asian/White Mix, 45 million dollar networth, high status. But his status, networth, height, and race are all lower SMV than Mr. Beast so his girlfriend is less attractive.

He's also basically looksmaxed.

But then you have some one like Neil Strauss. Hotter wife than both of them. Low Bodyfat, clean shaven, but bald, low muscles, 5'6, and sub-average face, estimated 5 million network. But he's game-maxed. He's a dark triad, that's practiced lying to thousands and thousands of women, until he has the perfect lies and routines to get them into threesomes and stuff. He was a new York Times Reporter, so he had good status as well.

My point of all of this is that in everything, looks, money, status, game, location-maxing, NT-Maxing, there's a point of diminishing returns after which if you keep maxing that one thing out, your total SMV suffers opportunity cost, of not maxing something else out.

For maximum SMV you need to get everything most of the way there, and let synergy do it's work. You can't neglect any area.

Markiplier met his gf on tinder, which means he didn't use NTness or Game, although he surely had status maxed pictures with his money, and used his youtuber status/job to turn his match into a date. He combined MoneyMax, LooksMax, and StatusMax but by still neglecting two crucial pillars he now has to suffer a life of being married to a low/medium tier becky.

So Everything matters. This has been my sermon.

As far as the classic response "But Chad Doesn't have to do xyz", You are Chad, You will never be Chad, No amount of looksmaxing will make you Chad if your base isn't strong enough, what you have to do to succeed is not what some one else had to do. (Not directed at you specifically, but you know)

There are lots of rotters that have focused over a decade on only maxing out looks, or only maxing out game, or only maxing out money and status. That is a suboptimal strategy for SMV because of diminishing returns. Even maxing out only game + Looks, won't be enough for many guys.

 

[KpopmaxxingGuy]

Looksmaxing alone won't ascend most guys, unless you count smashing fat ugly sweaty feminists.

People here, and on the incel website have done dating app experiments with 300 lb middle aged women, and gotten hundreds of matches, and a dozen or so looks maxed (muscles, low bodyfat, clear skin) guys, that were respectful and wanted to date her.

So most guys HAVE to combine lookingmaxing with maxes, like status max, money max, game max, and NT max. So the chance of success is pretty fucking low because it's hard to be the top in so many different categories at the same time, but not impossible.

So take Mr. Beast, a 6'2" white normie, that probably works out and is mostly looksmaxed. He has a hot girlfriend because he has a net worth of about 500 million and was the biggest youtuber for a while.

Then you have some one like Markiplier. Muscular, 5'10 Asian/White Mix, 45 million dollar networth, high status. But his status, networth, height, and race are all lower SMV than Mr. Beast so his girlfriend is less attractive.

He's also basically looksmaxed.
View attachment 2923866

But then you have some one like Neil Strauss. Hotter wife than both of them. Low Bodyfat, clean shaven, but bald, low muscles, 5'6, and sub-average face, estimated 5 million network. But he's game-maxed. He's a dark triad, that's practiced lying to thousands and thousands of women, until he has the perfect lies and routines to get them into threesomes and stuff. He was a new York Times Reporter, so he had good status as well.

My point of all of this is that in everything, looks, money, status, game, location-maxing, NT-Maxing, there's a point of diminishing returns after which if you keep maxing that one thing out, your total SMV suffers opportunity cost, of not maxing something else out.

For maximum SMV you need to get everything most of the way there, and let synergy do it's work. You can't neglect any area.

Markiplier met his gf on tinder, which means he didn't use NTness or Game, although he surely had status maxed pictures with his money, and used his youtuber status/job to turn his match into a date. He combined MoneyMax, LooksMax, and StatusMax but by still neglecting two crucial pillars he now has to suffer a life of being married to a low/medium tier becky.

So Everything matters. This has been my sermon.

As far as the classic response "But Chad Doesn't have to do xyz", You are Chad, You will never be Chad, No amount of looksmaxing will make you Chad if your base isn't strong enough, what you have to do to succeed is not what some one else had to do. (Not directed at you specifically, but you know)

There are lots of rotters that have focused over a decade on only maxing out looks, or only maxing out game, or only maxing out money and status. That is a suboptimal strategy for SMV because of diminishing returns. Even maxing out only game + Looks, won't be enough for many guys.

I don't know if I should be motivated or not after reading this.

 

[noodlelover]

I don't know if I should be motivated or not after reading this.

imho the competition is so great, that the only way to stay motivated is developing genuine enjoyment of challenge, and the inevitable emotional states that come with that.

To leanmax you have to enjoy being hungry. You have to enjoy being tired, and delirious from lack of sleep caused by hunger. One of the best looking guys I've ever met, was addicted to the feeling of fasting. He told me about how he craves the feeling you get after not eating a few days. I've done weeks long fasting, but I hate it, which is why I haven't been able to maintain much fat loss.

To game-max you have to enjoy the social awkwardness, the adrenaline rush, and getting ignored and stared at in shock while the girl is ignoring you, by onlookers. You have to enjoy the feeling of loneliness going home after hundreds of cold rejections by all types of women. And you have to enjoy practicing routines in the mirror, and every little bit of progress you make.

To moneymax, you have to fully be present and enjoy whatever grind you are on.

Gym-maxing is the easiest to enjoy because your body naturally creates feel good chemicals from lifting, which is why there's so many sexless gymcels rotting in the gym.

The Same goes for Tinder-swiping. It floods the brain with dopamine from seeing women, and getting matches, which is why it's oversaturated, full of rotting incels.


As far as enjoying emotional and physiological states most would consider suffering, this is beyond my expertise. But I do know, from the mere exposure effect, that the more you are exposed to something, the more you enjoy it.

Exposure could be thought of as both temporal, as in the total duration, and depth, as in how much your mind focuses on it. So by putting yourself in the various states of suffering to move towards your goals, and focusing intensely on those feelings of suffering (Boredom, embarrassment, hunger, tiredness, deliriousness, wanting to cry, and so on) you increase your exposure, which I suspect should increase your ability to become addicted to those emotions.

Because if you can't enjoy the emotions, there's no way the mind is going to be able to put in the time required for success, without back slipping.

 

[KpopmaxxingGuy]

imho the competition is so great, that the only way to stay motivated is developing genuine enjoyment of challenge, and the inevitable emotional states that come with that.

To leanmax you have to enjoy being hungry. You have to enjoy being tired, and delirious from lack of sleep caused by hunger. One of the best looking guys I've ever met, was addicted to the feeling of fasting. He told me about how he craves the feeling you get after not eating a few days. I've done weeks long fasting, but I hate it, which is why I haven't been able to maintain much fat loss.

To game-max you have to enjoy the social awkwardness, the adrenaline rush, and getting ignored and stared at in shock while the girl is ignoring you, by onlookers. You have to enjoy the feeling of loneliness going home after hundreds of cold rejections by all types of women. And you have to enjoy practicing routines in the mirror, and every little bit of progress you make.

To moneymax, you have to fully be present and enjoy whatever grind you are on.

Gym-maxing is the easiest to enjoy because your body naturally creates feel good chemicals from lifting, which is why there's so many sexless gymcels rotting in the gym.

The Same goes for Tinder-swiping. It floods the brain with dopamine from seeing women, and getting matches, which is why it's oversaturated, full of rotting incels.


As far as enjoying emotional and physiological states most would consider suffering, this is beyond my expertise. But I do know, from the mere exposure effect, that the more you are exposed to something, the more you enjoy it.

Exposure could be thought of as both temporal, as in the total duration, and depth, as in how much your mind focuses on it. So by putting yourself in the various states of suffering to move towards your goals, and focusing intensely on those feelings of suffering (Boredom, embarrassment, hunger, tiredness, deliriousness, wanting to cry, and so on) you increase your exposure, which I suspect should increase your ability to become addicted to those emotions.

Because if you can't enjoy the emotions, there's no way the mind is going to be able to put in the time required for success, without back slipping.

How does one cope with or enjoy getting mogged? Genuine question, getting mogged constantly despite looksmaxxing is making me depressed. The idea that when in a group of guys, the fact that I'm the one who approached will make a girl feel disappointed. That I'm never the #1. What should I do?

 

[´´´´´´´´]

This is not hyperbolic.

 

[yue]

Hotter wife than both of them.

get your eyes checked, that roasty doesn't mog anyone

 

[incel194012940]

Looksmaxing alone won't ascend most guys, unless you count smashing fat ugly sweaty feminists.

People here, and on the incel website have done dating app experiments with 300 lb middle aged women, and gotten hundreds of matches, and a dozen or so looks maxed (muscles, low bodyfat, clear skin) guys, that were respectful and wanted to date her.

So most guys HAVE to combine lookingmaxing with maxes, like status max, money max, game max, and NT max. So the chance of success is pretty fucking low because it's hard to be the top in so many different categories at the same time, but not impossible.

So take Mr. Beast, a 6'2" white normie, that probably works out and is mostly looksmaxed. He has a hot girlfriend because he has a net worth of about 500 million and was the biggest youtuber for a while.

Then you have some one like Markiplier. Muscular, 5'10 Asian/White Mix, 45 million dollar networth, high status. But his status, networth, height, and race are all lower SMV than Mr. Beast so his girlfriend is less attractive.

He's also basically looksmaxed.
View attachment 2923866

But then you have some one like Neil Strauss. Hotter wife than both of them. Low Bodyfat, clean shaven, but bald, low muscles, 5'6, and sub-average face, estimated 5 million network. But he's game-maxed. He's a dark triad, that's practiced lying to thousands and thousands of women, until he has the perfect lies and routines to get them into threesomes and stuff. He was a new York Times Reporter, so he had good status as well.

My point of all of this is that in everything, looks, money, status, game, location-maxing, NT-Maxing, there's a point of diminishing returns after which if you keep maxing that one thing out, your total SMV suffers opportunity cost, of not maxing something else out.

For maximum SMV you need to get everything most of the way there, and let synergy do it's work. You can't neglect any area.

Markiplier met his gf on tinder, which means he didn't use NTness or Game, although he surely had status maxed pictures with his money, and used his youtuber status/job to turn his match into a date. He combined MoneyMax, LooksMax, and StatusMax but by still neglecting two crucial pillars he now has to suffer a life of being married to a low/medium tier becky.

So Everything matters. This has been my sermon.

As far as the classic response "But Chad Doesn't have to do xyz", You are Chad, You will never be Chad, No amount of looksmaxing will make you Chad if your base isn't strong enough, what you have to do to succeed is not what some one else had to do. (Not directed at you specifically, but you know)

There are lots of rotters that have focused over a decade on only maxing out looks, or only maxing out game, or only maxing out money and status. That is a suboptimal strategy for SMV because of diminishing returns. Even maxing out only game + Looks, won't be enough for many guys.

you are probably right but it is so cringe you need to do all that for some becky and at a certain point it’s time to call it quits and just chill

 

[noodlelover]

How does one cope with or enjoy getting mogged? Genuine question, getting mogged constantly despite looksmaxxing is making me depressed. The idea that when in a group of guys, the fact that I'm the one who approached will make a girl feel disappointed. That I'm never the #1. What should I do?

Pickup literally crushed my self worth for over a decade, completely killing any confidence I had.

It's the most soul crushing thing imaginable. Right now I'm focused on other areas. I will get back into pickup in my mid 40s after I've managed to location-max, and I've managed to get going a revenue stream that let's me work and make money anywhere in the world.

I know that sounds nuts, but I'm continuing to looks-max in the mean time. And I'll have more realistic expectations going into it now, than I did last time, when I thought, "Hey, I'm a tall fit white guy, with a cute face, some girls should like me" only for reality to come crushing down on me.

I've since learned a lot about motivation, and done experiments for things like weight loss.

The biggest thing I'm going to do for motivation is keep track of more appropriate metrics. Metrics control your focus, what you optimize for, and what you somewhat "enjoy". There's enjoyment in 'number go up'.

So instead of just tracking approaches, I'm going to try out, tracking only one metric at a time, that's just beyond my current skill level. Basically attach a goal to every night. So in the beginning, when I'm getting back into the swing of things, that metric will only be "did I go out into the environment?", "Did I hit my two hour goal?", and "Did I make it back home safely?".

Basically, I'll go out, get a glass of water or a glass of some non-alcoholic drink and then stand in the corner, for whatever my goal is, say 2 hours, for 2 days out of the week. I'll will track this every-week, and consider this a success.

After a couple weeks, I'll increase the metric for success. Now "Success" is going out for two hours and maintaining a feel good, non nervous, non depressed emotional state, while I'm at the bar/club. Essentially just meditating in the corner with my drink.

So, I'll go out Friday Night and Saturday Night every week. And Saturday during the day, and Sunday During the day, I will write journal entries, for my own emotional well being. Basically, pickup is trauma, and the journal entries help cope with that trauma. I'll write about my emotions and the experiences I had, and how it made me feel.

The next thing I'll do is practice a few lines that I think will be appropriate for the bar/club environment I've been going too. By this point I'll have watched the groups of girls and guys that go to that place, and have a good idea of their vibe, and will be able to craft "Something".

So I'll start tracking, approaches, where I successfully delivered some variation of the opener I practiced. It'll be something generic like "Hey guys, how's it going?" "I'm x, what's your name?", "What do you guy's do?", "Are you students?". Basic stuff like that, so I don't get called out or using the same routines on every one.

So by this point, bigger, more muscular dudes are going to start blowing me out of set. This is natural, and I'll do journal entries to cope. But the journal entries are also to strategize.

This is what the pickup artists call "AMOG battles", or "Alpha male other guy". Cringe, I know, but bear with me. There are strategize online for these things, and strategies I can come up with. At this point, I'm going to practice routines in the mirror at home during the week, and in mental imagination space, for AMOG specifically, and start tracking how often I use those routines, and how often I'm blown out of set.

This is epic shit. David vs Goliath, Mortal Man vs unkillable God. There is a beauty in the ferocity of taking on a bigger more skilled opponent. There is beauty in getting punched in the face, over and over, and continuing to come back for more.

It's like a game of chess, and you're at a disadvantage, but I don't believe it's an impossible game. I've been blown out by guys roughly the same looks level as me, that were able to isolate the girl, turn her back to me, and pin her near the wall so I couldn't be part of the conversation anymore. There's tactics where you talk about how the girl and the AMOG would make a perfect couple, that are suppose to cause her to reject him out of the awkwardness of the frame. There's tactics where after learning the AMOGs job, you say "Oh cool" in a way you'd say it to a child to encourage him, that makes his accomplishment feel small. I'm not at the point of AMOG battles, but when I get there, I'll first celebrate every line I'm able to say and have the girl react too before I'm completely blown out of the set. Then I'll celebrate every subtle diss I'm able to get out, and every time she takes a step away from the guy. If you get under the guys skin, without the girl realizing, he's fucked.

The girl's themselves will blow me out of the set much of the time, focusing on the better looking guy and ignoring me. If this is the case, I'll start practicing maneuvering her, and her angle to make it much harder for other guys to approach, and if possible doing subtle movements to make others who are watching, think we're a couple like leading her to the bar, and leading her to a different place in the club that's "less loud". Basically, other dudes see us walking around together they'll be less likely to approach. For AMOG's I'll practice extreme confidence, faked sure, but still a large energy I give off. This could influence the girl's frame to start valuing the looks aspects or other attractive aspects of myself, that I value. Even good looking guys have low self esteemed, so if the roided chad start's to think I have something he doesn't, or one of his flaws (that I'll focus my mental energy on but won't call out), is worse than he thinks.

I'll try out everything, and celebrate at least learning my idea didn't work and moving on to the next one, or tweaking the vibe, energy, momentum, tonality, or motion of the routine subtle to see if it makes a difference. Worst case scenario, I switch to day game, where the challenge isn't other guys, but girls being in the frame of mind of "don't trust stranger", "don't feel like talking", "don't stop for stranger", which is a completely different challenge. I'm not sure which is an easier challenge. Honestly I think club game is easier, because you can get a make-out before other guys have a chance to get into your set, if you have chemistry with the girl, or you can physically escalate, or other AMOG tactics.

But really it's going to be exploratory. I'm going to treat it like a complex game, and celebrate the small wins. Yes, I'm going to be old, and that's going to suck, but my frame is going to be, I'm the smooth old dude, and you're the young nothing, until I can push that frame so hard AMOGs and targets start falling into it. The frame will be dating apps are cringe, and I have a bigger dick, and have more sexual energy and charisma. And I'll experiment with how different energies can effect the dynamic.

But the thing is, it's a challenge. It's something to do. I won't go in with the naivety of my youth. I've seen old (70s) bald ugly dudes making out with hot young girls at the club. I know it's possible. And if I have to target older women, who are still hot, I will try that.

Hell, even if I have to target land whales and beast women, I'll still do it for the challenge and fun of it. Granted, I won't sleep with them when there's zero attraction. I'll make up some excuse about missing my ex, but count it as a win if I get them naked in their room. I'll celebrate the win, by taking my self out to ice cream or something the next day. Again, it's just something to do.

About two years ago, I did around three hundred approaches in a public place, just talking to people, and slayed two 18 year olds, one twenty something year old, and two of those girls were hot. Four other girls, I flirted and had some clear chemistry with, involving one make out, but it didn't go anywhere. So clearly it's still possible, and the rest of the social interactions were a mixed bag, of meeting some cool people, and getting ignored by a lot of different girls, but not all of them. There were other girls that thought I were hot, but they had boyfriends, and boyfriends were asking me if the girls were flirting with me when they met me. XD

That was when I was mid 30s, better success than mid 20s. Social Skills and Vibe/Energy matters, and my decade of looksmaxing.