This post is also available in: Deutsch
it is ironic the HBD movement is so closely associated with the Game o sphere.
on the one hand u have people arguing genes dont lie. on the other, people argue it isnt too hard to lie about your genes.
HBD (for those readers who aren’t yet familiar with the term) stands for “human biodiversity” and is a school of thought that acknowledges that humans differ genetically in character traits on the population group level as well as the individual level. It shares an underlying doctrine with PUA (pickup artistry) — namely, that evolutionary science can explain a lot about modern human behavior, whether ethnic, racial, or sexual. Thus, HBD and PUA are cross-linked on a foundational level. Perhaps the most notable difference is that practitioners in PUA, through the use of game, are candid about seeking to exploit the knowledge of generalizable human behavioral differences for personal fun and profit. HBD believers (which, in actuality, includes most of humanity, regardless of their claims to believing it or not) hide their true intentions behind an obfuscatory cloud of squid ink and evasion even as they rush to move to undiverse neighborhoods when their kids are old enough to go to school.
The difference between a PUA and the typical HBD follower: the PUA has the integrity to stand by his actions and not insult your intelligence.
But the web has released an unabashed HBD Kraken from its underwater lair, and this beast is not afraid to confront harsh realities without the whitewash of politesse and codewords. Unfortunately, in its zeal to smash pretty lies by the boatload, the movement tends to succumb to infatuation with its opposition theories. The faint whiff of immutable determinism swirls snugly like a straitjacket on the follower fringe. An impetus to categorize human interactions based on easily perceived objective traits hints at the nerd-lke systematizing mind trying to grasp the significance of the new and dangerous knowledge.
AHE’s comment is a perfect example of this, and similar to a lot of other anti-game comments floating around the HBD-sphere. His (her?) assertion that HBD is all about “genes don’t lie” betrays a newbie’s understanding of the science, or a liar’s facility with disingenuousness. No evolutionary scientist worth his salt would argue that genes are wholly deterministic, or that the environment plays no role in shaping who we are. What the HBD movement *does* argue is that, since the second half of the 20th century, the genetic explanation for human differences has gotten short shrift, while the environmental explanation — or “blank slate” paradigm — has been untouchable. HBD thus brings balance to the force by revealing the ugly truth that genes account for a lot more of who we are than is currently acknowledged by our ruling class cognoscenti. That this makes a lot of lying shitsacks uncomfortable is a doubleplusgood perk.
So AHE’s specious association between HBD and PUA beliefs is false. Game is not about lying about your genes, just as HBD is not about genes determining the totality of who you are.
AHE, and some others with HBD-themed blogs, claim that belief in game is like a belief in the blank slate — you can’t make an alpha out of an inborn beta. Genes über alles. What an out of tune pitch to make by some of our web’s best and brightest! Can no one improve his lot? Is a 90 IQ person incapable of learning anything? Should that dummy just hang it up as soon as he’s born and suckle through a feeding and drugging tube provided by his 120+ IQ elite caretakers?
Or, to put it in simpler terms, imagine two 90 IQ kids. One is dumped in an empty trailer park to fend for himself, separate from civilization, and the other is raised the normal way, up through high school where he earns a solid C average. Can anyone realistically say the former is going to possess the same knowledge base and the same power of reasoning as the latter? Yes, the average 90 IQ kid is not likely to achieve what the average 110 IQ kid will, but he can, through effort, maximize what he’s got.
In the same way, a natural born beta can work to maximize his attractiveness to women by learning and applying game. And we have the proof that it works, in the testimony of literally tens of thousands of men who have seen their success with women skyrocket after becoming acquainted with the principles and tactics of game. True, the beta with game may never reach the exalted heights of the natural born alpha, but he can improve his lay rate and the quality of women he dates.
Which brings us to a quirky observation of the HBD community: a number of HBD writers and commenters exhibit a curiously child-like lack of understanding of female nature, and what motivates women to make the decisions they do in the dating market. It’s a strange blindspot they have that is probably best explained by their nerdiness and their concomitant need to quantify male attractiveness based on readily observable traits and markers of a traditionalist coloration. Doubters like AHE can only see male worth in easily measurable metrics like looks, money, and material possessions. To them, no man who doesn’t have status along these metrics will see any success with “alpha mimicking” game.
But game alone is enough to attract women, regardless of the objectively measurable quantity of those other male attractiveness traits. As has been argued here before, GAME IS ITS OWN STATUS. Women are turned on by men with tight game as much as, or maybe more than, they are turned on by a man with good looks or a high powered job. Certainly the conventional measures are helpful to a man’s success with women, but they aren’t the whole story. Game itself is a turn-on for women, because game is a true, authentic manifestation of manly power. During the learning stage, some portions of game may be a “mimicking” of alpha traits, but once game is internalized it becomes as much a part of a man’s suite of powerful coolness as any other marker of male attractiveness. After all, a man gunning through law school to get a high paying job that is attractive to women is “mimicking” alpha traits — faking it till he makes it — just as much as the guy attending the university of game. That one route happens to be more efficient than the other for acquiring the love and sexual surrender of many women is no argument against its authenticity.
Furthermore, there is the matter of game being a positive indicator of desirable male traits in and of itself. The men who excel at game are signaling a high ability to learn and apply new concepts, and a fortitude to see a self-improvement project through to success. These characteristics — fortitude, open-mindedness, discipline, ambition — are attractive to women. Now some will say these traits are all genetically influenced, and that may be true, but if so it does not argue against game as an authentic signal of male fuckability.
So HBD nerds need to get over the obvious “money/looks/fame” box within which they argue and constrict themselves, and begin to see that, like human differences in general, there is room to remake ourselves into better versions of who we are. To deny this is to deny there is any reason to put forth effort into anything of note after birth. There is more than one way to pierce a pussy. Women love game-spitting charming assholes as much as they love resource-providing stoic captains of industry. There is no contradiction in this observation.
On a side note, betas having more kids than alphas is not necessarily evidence that they are better with women. Instead, all it could mean is that the betas are finally getting their shot at aging pussy after the alphas have had their fill of that same pussy when it was younger, hotter, tighter and uninterested in baby-making. Number of kids is a poor measure of alphaness in this hedonistic day and age.