Let’s talk about “man crushes” today… in a completely heterosexual way.
One of the limitations I’ve noticed of red pill blogs is that the prescriptions rarely take a man’s personality into account. Sure, we can all agree that Donald Trump is a super-alpha, but is it really practical for every reader to try to imitate him?
Donald Trump is who he is… partly because of his work ethic… but also partly because of his natural personality. I could never be like Trump no matter how hard I worked.
This is why I think it’s useful to learn frame and game by studying men that are suitable for one’s own personality.
***WARNING: Nerdy Talk Begins Here***
The most useful personality system I’ve found is the Myers-Briggs typology. I’ve studied this system on-and-off over the years and my opinion of it has varied from thinking it was fascinating to thinking it was deeply flawed. Now I realize the problem isn’t the system itself, but rather how it’s typically used.
First off, the letters you’re probably familiar with, such as the ESFJ or the INTP, are misleading. They are just the shorthand and are rather misleading to those uninitiated to the underlying functions.
One of the biggest errors people make is they assume someone is either extroverted or introverted. But the reality is that everyone has both extroverted and introverted functions. An extrovert is simply someone who uses their extroverted functions more frequently than their introverted functions, and vice versa for introverts. This is why you can have an introvert being outgoing in a social setting or an extrovert who is perfectly content doing solitary activities.
It’s also worth noting that “extroversion” refers to how you interact with any part of the external world, not just people.
Another error people make, that is encouraged by the shorthand version, is they assume that people are either “judgers” (i.e. making decisions and getting things done) or “perceivers” (i.e. exploring new ideas and possibilities). Just as with the extrovert-introvert dynamic, this is also a misunderstanding. Every person has cognitive functions for both making decisions and exploring new ideas.
The other limitation of the shorthand typing system is that it only describes people’s as they are not who they are becoming. Every person has dominant functions that he uses naturally, and weaker functions which he wishes to develop. When people are young and not fully mature, they tend to be attracted to a mate who is the mirror image of themselves (i.e. their dominant functions are your weak functions, and vice versa.) (Interesting read on that by Pat Stedman here.)
Anyhow, none of these nuances are reflected in the 4-letter typing system. The more accurate system works like this:
Each person has 4 modes of cognitive functioning, two “judging” and two “perceiving” modes. And each of these modes is paired with an extroverted or introverted function. So there are 4 possible perceptive functions:
- Extroverted-Intuition (Ne) – The Brainstormer. Generates new possibilities, synthesizes abstract ideas and picks up on cues in the external environment.
- Introverted-Intuition (Ni) – The Theorist. Uses mental models to understand and analyze the world and anticipate future events. Perceptive of inconsistencies and always adapting their models.
- Extroverted-Sensing (Se) – The Life of the Party. Takes in the world as it exists in the moment. Highly in tune with the sights, smells, sounds, and other physical stimulus around them.
- Introverted-Sensing (Si) – The Observer. Takes notes of facts and events exactly as they happen and categorizes them. Like an internal filing system.
Each person has two of the above. One extroverted and one introverted.
Likewise, there are 4 possible decision-making functions. Each person has one extroverted and one introverted decision-making function function:
- Introverted-Feeling (Fi) – The Creative. Reflects deeply on how one feels and what is right or wrong. Searches for the deeper meaning behind everything. Artistic and creative endeavors are a natural outlet.
- Extroverted-Feeling (Fe) – The Peacekeeper. Concerned with maintaining social norms and keeping the peace. Strives to do what is best for the group.
- Extroverted-Thinking (Te) – The Manager. Seeks to impose order on the external environment as efficiently and logically as possible. Values productivity and results.
- Introverted-Thinking (Ti) – The Scientist. Seeks to form a framework on how the world works on a concrete, tangible level. Naturally notices inconsistencies and loves to take things apart to see how they work.
Once you identify your strongest function from each group and then your weaker (i.e. your second choice) from each group, then you can accurately identify your personality type with the four-letter system:
If you’d like to learn more about this, there’s as an excellent article written by Heidi Priebe over at Thought Catalog.
***SIGH OF RELIEF: Nerdy Talk Ends Here***
The great thing about the Myers-Briggs system is that there are helpful nerds all around the internet who have spent hours arguing about and classifying famous people by their personality types.
So… think about that.
Nowadays, no one can become famous unless they know how to present themselves well. They have to dress and groom well. They have to speak confidently. They’re looked up to as leaders.
In other words, celebrities have everything women want.
And there are celebrities that are the same personality type as you. This means you can model yourself (how you speak, how you dress, how you control the frame etc.) after someone who probably already share some of the mannerisms with.
It doesn’t matter if you personally like the celebrity or agree with what they stand for. We’re just looking for men with high sex appeal whom we can model ourselves after. It’s easy to admire high-SMV men. But we want to model ourselves after high-SMV men that we have a realistic shot at authentically emulating.
So, courtesy of 16Personalities.com, here are some ideas to get you started.
- Christopher Nolan
- Colon Powell
- Elon Musk
- Arnold Schwarzenegger
- Vladimir Putin
- Bill Gates
- Stanley Crouch
- Steve Jobs
- Gordon Ramsay
- Harrison Ford
- Jim Carry
- David Petraeus
- “Weird Al” Yankovich
- Adam Savage
- Tom Hanks
- Sacha Baron Cohen
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Nelson Mandela
- Jimmy Carter
- Morgan Freeman
- Johnny Depp
- Tom Hiddleston
- Barack Obama
- John Cusack
- Ben Affleck
- Sean Connery
- Robert Downey, Jr.
- Will Smith
- Robin Williams
- Russell Brand
- Quentin Tarantino
- Denzel Washington
- Anthony Hopkins
- George H.W. Bush
- Frank Sinatra
- Lyndon B. Johnson
- Bill Clinton
- Steve Harvey
- Danny Glover
- Clint Eastwood
- Bear Grylls
- Tom Cruise
- Michael Jordan
- Daniel Craig
- Kevin Costner
- Michael Jackson
- Jack Nicholson
- Eddie Murphy
- Bruce Willis
- Michael J. Fox
- Nicolas Sarkozy
- Samuel L. Jackson
- Jamie Oliver
- Jamie Foxx
- Adam Levine
- Steve Irwin
I’m guessing that none of the men listed above have (had) any trouble getting laid. Find your personality type and then start studying interviews of those celebrities on YouTube. Pay attention to how they speak, how they control the frame, how they dress, how they present themselves. They became famous for a reason.
Imitate what you like. It will probably work for you.
This post is a mind dump of thoughts for future development. You may safely ignore if you have no interest in my undeveloped musings.
- The alpha male can be described as one who gives a confident display of good looks and intelligence. These attributes signal to the woman that the man has good genes and hence good sperm.
- The field of epigenetics tells us that our “gene expression” can change based on what we eat, where we live, who we interact with, etc. In other words, one’s DNA code is only the starting point, not the final destination.
- Similarly, our habits can highlight or hide our genetic potential. For instance, poor hygiene, poor grooming, or poor diet can mask what would otherwise be an attractive man. Similarly, a lack of communication skill can mask an otherwise intelligent mind. This is the Golden Rule of genetic display: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
- The “ideal man” that a woman imagines plays a relatively insignificant role in determining whether she will submit her body to a man. The most important factors for sexual suggestibility are authority and frame.
- A man can display authority through his looks by dressing and grooming like someone who should be taken seriously. This creates perceived authority before a word is even spoken.
- A man can display intellectual authority by adapting similar language patterns of his intellectual superiors. One exercise I’ve been trying is watching videos of Vox Day and NN Taleb and making note of how they describe things with intellectual authority. For example, instead of “this person is full of B.S.” it becomes “this person shows signs of a fundamentally dishonest mind.” Or instead of saying “I disagree” they go straight to the point and talk about a “lack of integrity.” They remain calm and confident in their delivery and it inspires instinctive submission in the listener.
- Frame is the context in which one interprets information. We don’t process information in a vacuum. We try to fit it into a story… what does it mean?
- The first heard story sets the frame. Frame control is not so much about tapping into an elusive sense of confidence as it is about providing explanations to novel information before she can interpret it herself.
- There are three primary methods a man can use control the frame:
- Providing the first explanation to an unexpected event
- Telling stories
- Ignoring or dismissing explanations that do not fit his frame
- Ignoring her frame is not enough. A man has to interpret the events of life and tell stories if he’s going to hold the dominant frame.
- Frame control is a display of superior intelligence. If a man is able to process new information and come to a meaningful conclusion quicker than his woman, she instinctively knows he’s a worthy man to submit to.
Had a great discussion over on the Red Pill Christians sub the other day.
A single guy was discussing his experience on a couple recent dates. It’s worth reading because, first off, the guy’s a great example on how to have humility of mind when applying red pill philosophy. He’s open to correction and willing to admit he has more to learn. I expect he will have success if he keeps at it.
But the post is also a great example of what I believe is the most common mistake made in the red pill community (both married and single):
Focusing too much on tactics, not enough on mindset.
The guy described the things he did “right”, like he brought something to do in order to look busy beforehand, how he asked them questions and controlled the conversation, ended the date after an hour, etc.
He also described his “weaknesses” – how he bought the coffee for them, how he said “I like that” too much about things she said, how he needs to make eye contact more, etc.
On the surface, his assessments sound on track. He’s distinguishing alpha and beta behaviors. But he’s never going to be able to change into an alpha by focusing on all the little things he did wrong. Alpha comes from the mindset not from surface level behaviors.
I told him instead of trying to focus on a bunch of specifics, focus on ONE thing that will pull everything else together for him. For example, imagine that he was a king of a large kingdom, and these women are being brought to him in order to see if they pleased him. If they didn’t, there’s no need to worry about it because there are plenty of other women in line to see him.
Another commenter followed up by saying to simply take attraction for granted. You don’t need to worry if you’re doing the “right” things. She’s there with you, so she’s obviously attracted to you. You’re just trying to qualify her to see if she’s suited for your lifestyle.
Rollo Tomassi has written that the core difference between an alpha and a beta is an abundance vs. a scarcity mindset. When you have an abundance mindset, she’ll end up trying to please you because she senses you’re not afraid to lose her. But when you have a scarcity mindset, you’ll engage in “mate guarding” behavior that she’ll find repulsive.
Ironically, when you try to be more alpha by imitating what alphas do, this is just another form of mate guarding. You’re trying to be more alpha out fear of “screwing up.” She’ll see right through it and perceive you as needy.
But when you simply assume she’s already attracted to you and that lots of women would want to be with you, that’s when you will naturally display alpha behavior.
In short, spend less time trying to do what alphas do and more time thinking about how lucky any woman would be to be blessed with your seed.
Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.
-Song of Solomon 1:3
Men, behold… the hidden source of all your problems:
Then to Adam [God] said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’
The root cause of Adam’s sin was not that he was deceived. The root cause was that he stepped down from his decision-making role and followed the advice of his wife.
Women are great in management and sub-ordinate positions. They are loyal. They will work hard when motivated. They are empathetic to the immediate needs of those in their care.
But women are terrible in an executive leadership role. They cannot relax enough to make level-headed decisions. They prioritize their immediate concerns such as status and perceived safety over long-term success. They lack the testosterone necessary to take risks. They have a hard time saying “no” to outside requests.
In other words, women are great at doing things, but terrible at deciding what to do.
The problem comes when the roles are flipped. The husband is busy doing things and trying to appease his wife. Meanwhile, the wife is not busy enough (because she spends 3+ hours on Facebook) and uses all her time worrying about how she’s “not good enough.” Then she feels guilty for wasting her time so she’ll throw herself into a project she feels behind on only to give up due to feeling “overwhelmed” at the pressures of life.
This is not a good way to run a home. Men frequently work harder than they need to because they feel insecure and fear their wives’ disapproval. And without a day full of meaningful work, a woman gives into anxiety.
An effective ruler spends less time on busy work, more time on establishing values, creating a vision, setting goals, communicating progress, and making sure his sub-ordinates have everything they need to move forward.
It takes a lot of thinking to keep a wife happily busy!
For an interesting perspective on leadership, check out the short article “Use Disciples for Success” by Richard Koch. It’s about making disciples in a business context, but I think the core idea is applicable to making disciples in the home. At first glance, the idea sounds unfair. But keep in mind, sub-ordinates are happiest when they are occupied with meaningful work.
I will feel like I’ve lived a life worth living if my writing can help men embrace the following two truths about life:
Truth #1: Women are easily deceived. A man should not trust a woman for advice.
Truth #2: A woman’s most powerful desire is to be bred and dominated by an alpha male.
Everything I write is really just theme and variation on those fundamental truths.
Coincidentally, you can approximate your rank (or potential rank) in the socio-sexual hierarchy based on how you responded to the above statements.
Alpha: **Shrugs and moves on.**
Beta: “Yes. I need to remember this.”
Delta: “I don’t know about that. I take advice from my wife all the time. She’s an intelligent woman. And a woman is not a sex object. You seem to be venturing into dangerous territory here.”
Gamma: “The socio-sexual hierarchy is based subjective judgments that have no scientific proof. I find it appalling that a blog that purports to give sex advice would force men into such arbitrary categories. Do you really think God would judge men by such standards? More likely, the author is simply trying to project an alpha persona to compensate for his insecurities. But he is clearly a poser who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. If he’s so alpha, why doesn’t he show a picture of his wife? Probably because she’s an ugly overweight cow. Ha! This guy is a joke.”
Omega: “Women are so stupid. Their suffering is well-deserved. Men are better off without them.”
Sigma: “Hmm… let me think about that…”
Illimitable Men’s reflections on dominance and submission is a better marriage guide anything you’ll hear from the pulpit today:
[A] good woman is the handiwork of great men, ideally well-raised by a strong father, but at the very least young and receptive to dominant, masculine governance. A woman cannot, try it as she may, become the embodiment of what a man wants without her chosen partner having a hand in the matter, for her constitution is innately erratic, and as such, in the absence of a strong male figure in her life, she will in all likelihood fall prey to predacious dogma and sully herself.
The value of a young woman extends beyond the appeal of her physical youth and fertility, although both are covetously desirable in and of themselves, it is her malleability to be formed into a woman who complements a man that is her main draw. Older women are, much to the dismay of men everywhere, not solely lacking in beauty, but largely irredeemable in that they lack the pliability archetypal of young women.
Bitter older woman unable to secure a dominant alpha who see a young woman coupled with a man perhaps ten or even fifteen years her senior have an instinct to shame the couple, more specifically, the man. It is said by spinsters of ever-increasing opinionation that such men are no more than perverts, that they only covet a young woman’s body and sexuality, and that if such men were as refined as they, they’d look to date someone “more mature.” Be it that maturity for women is little more than bitterness that erodes their femininity, the point of maturity is an entirely moot point, for women mature little in adulthood. These spinsters disguise their vitriolic bitterness as concern for the well-being of young women, but in reality they are the jealous crabs in the bucket, scornful of the men who don’t want them, jealous of the women who can get them.
The man must act upon and mould a woman more than she does him, for if the woman is to act upon and mould the man, she will create something she finds abhorrent. More simply and explicitly stated, a woman will mould a man into someone she despises, but a man will mould a woman into someone he loves.
For the “how to’s” of moulding a woman, check out my latest guest post on the Sigma Frame blog.
Forget everything you learned in English class. This is real-world communication 101.
Lesson #1: Without frame control, your opinion doesn’t matter
Frame control primarily means three things:
- Call out B.S.
- Get to the point and don’t let people waste your time
- Don’t be the dancing monkey*
Lesson #2: Right Frame + Right Proposition + Trust = Agreement
- Do you have her attention?
- Does she understand your jargon?
- Is it directly relevant to her needs? (see Maslow’s hierarchy of needs)
- Is she capable of understanding and using what you’re telling her?
- Does it easily to connect to what she already understands and believes?
- Is the proposed change simple and easy to implement?
- Do you live consistently with your values?
- Does she know your intentions are for her own good?
- Have you shown yourself to be a capable man who can achieve his goals?
Lesson #3: Speak the unspoken
Guess what she’s thinking and say it before she does. This creates an instant mind-meld that allows you to direct her thoughts.
Lesson #4: Claims create objections
Our most automatic form of communication is a self-centered sequence: opinion > reason > evidence. Unless people already agree with you, they will almost certainly disagree with your claim.
But if you want someone to have the same epiphany as you, let them discover it themselves. Inverse the order: evidence > reason > suggestion.
This is not to say you should never lead with a claim. Claims expose people to new ideas. Just don’t expect anyone to agree with you if it’s a new idea. But repetitious exposure creates belief.
* The “dancing monkey” is a metaphor coined by freelance writer Bob Bly. It refers to the barrage of questions potential clients use to intimidate inexperienced freelancers into lowering their fees to barely livable wages: “have you worked in this industry before?” “what kind of results have you gotten?” “What makes you so sure you can do the job?” etc. etc.
Women do the same thing to their husbands when she demands explanations and “proof” to back up everything he says, bringing attention to his inadequacies and past failures in attempts to lower his confidence and force submission.
A noteworthy observation:
The more I’m away from the house, the more my wife wants to have sex with me.
Robert Greene’s Law of Power #16:
Use absence to increase respect and honor.
Or, to paraphrase King Solomon:
Let your foot be seldom in your [own] house, lest [she] have [her] fill of you and hate you. (Prov. 25:17)
The other day I got in a Twitter “fight” with some random girl named Sherry.
I’ve reproduced the argument below for instructive purposes. Comments are in brackets.
Tony Reinke: Al Mohler (June 2014): “If you get any report of any kind of sexual abuse, certainly involving a minor, you be committed before that ever happens, that before you leave that room you are going to dial 9-1-1 and you’re going to call for help.” [Virtue signaling]
JT: Translation: Always assume the man is guilty and turn the matter over to the secular courts. Hmm…
Sherry: He only said pastors aren’t qualified to investigate. Let the authorities do that. The ‘secular courts’ have presumption of innocence with burden of proof that has to be met. Not like the kangaroo courts we’ve seen in colleges where students can be railroaded with no defense.
JT: Perhaps you don’t know that it is shameful for Christians to go to court? (1 Cor 6)
Sherry: You can’t be serious to think there is a correlation between neighborhood litigation and sexual assault. Perhaps you don’t know that Christians are also sinners and commit crimes. Is this a parody account? [Both women and gamma males argue the same way: address an imaginary argument (“so you’re saying…”) rather than what was said. Then they attempt to change the topic with pseudo-logic and discredit the messenger.]
JT: Taking a sexual assault accusation to court is litigation by definition. Christians are called to use wisdom to judge each case fairly.
JT: Again, have you read 1 Corinthians 6?
Sherry: Yes I have and you’re definitely a joke.
Sherry: Christians are also called to follow the law.
JT: So turning a brother over to the court is following the law?
Sherry: I’m probably foolish to answer, but in this case Yes. @AlbertMohler is referring to sexual abuse. I stand by my first comment. 1 Cor 6 doesn’t apply. This isn’t a trivial or small matter to be handled between believers. Especially if a child is involved. [This is where she has given up. People who argue on an emotional level are quickly exhausted by logic. Also note the callout to @AlbertMohler. She is hoping a higher authority can affirm the opinion she cannot defend.]
JT: Sherry, you are allowing emotion to cloud your judgment. Just because a child is involved doesn’t automatically mean the man is guilty.
JT: 1 Cor 6 is a universal principle for all disputes between Christians. Each case must be examined with wisdom… without knee-jerk reactions
From what I can gather, there are three Christian goals to arguing:
- To shame opponents of truth into silence (Tit 2:8)
- To instruct a watching audience (Prov 19:25)
- To give the opponent opportunity to repent (2 Tim 2:25)*
My recent Twitter exchange inspired me to come up with a simple argument formula that Christians could use that I think meets all the above criteria:
- Decode the jargon – most opening statements from angry women and false teachers are nothing more than virtue signaling disguised with righteous sounding jargon. Decode the B.S. so that everyone can see the plain meaning.
- Have you not read? – call attention to the Scripture passage that corrects the false assumption. Phrasing it as a question makes it irresistible to the ego. No one wants to be ignorant. The intensity of the rhetoric here depends on the type of person you’re dealing with (e.g. man vs. woman, teacher vs. layman, educated vs. naive, etc.)
- Correct and dismiss the false argument – most of the time, you’ll be arguing with a gamma male or a woman. They won’t address your point and will almost without fail counter with a “so you’re saying…” line or something similar. Quickly correct and dismiss the false argument and immediately move to the next step.
- Restate the question. Go back to Step 2. Repeat Steps 3 & 4 if necessary.
* Note that the biblical concept of “gentleness” implies using strength. It’s an expression of power, but with reserve. In other words, only use as much strength as necessary for the situation.
A filter like this makes marriage a lot easier as a man.