This post is also available in: Deutsch
…according to this post by Tyler Cowen who contributes to the economics blog [REDACTED] and who refuses to link to me out of concern for the tender sensibilities of his readership — evangelical Bible Belt moms and beta academics I presume:
Should I, if only for didactic purposes, ever link to EVIL websites?
😀 😀 😀
If I come across a girl who reads his blog [REDACTED] I’ll show her this. Nothing gets a girl wetter faster than an evil bad boy. Chicks dig jerks. Chicks really dig evil jerks.
He promotes an aggressively instrumentalist view of the sexes; imagine Larry David as a scoreman plus make the language of the monologues ruder and more offensive. He also thinks like an economist and uses marginalism: “Smells bad. (when a shower isn’t going to help your cause, why bother?)”
My question is which parameter value he incorrectly estimates; after all, he is not just evil he is also imprudent in missing the joys of monogamy and matrimony. I believe that most of all, he underestimates his transparency to his observers in real life. I sometimes call this the endogeneity of face to thought and thus his face must be somewhat evil too. Since his strategies cause him to spend time only with women he can fool, he doesn’t correctly perceive how he is wrecking his broader reputation; the same is probably true for the rest of us as well.
It’s well-known in scientific circles that men with evil faces make the best lovers.
On a serious note: The mistake in his analysis is that a reputation as a ladies’ man makes a man *more* attractive to women, not less. And women aren’t “fooled” — women are complicit in their own seduction.
Can he still be saved by a good woman?
I like to think I’m a cuddly teddy bear whose pursuit of delicious pussy necessitates evil tactics. But maybe that’s just semantics.
Poor guy. Poor, poor guy.
Envy is 100% bad box office. Now excuse me I have to take an evil piss.