[ksbms]

(03-11-2018 06:01 PM)Perspicacity Wrote:  

[..] It's easy to forget that—as a whole, and in terms of particular types and approaches—game as we know it is a recent phenomenon, and was only ever effective due to a perfect storm of social and economic factors.

- Philosophical/sociological factors like feminism.
- Relatedly, the economic-philosophical strands of cultural Marxism following on from the late 19th century and from the 20th century. The 'ideal' of universal education, including for girls.
- Medical/technological factors like the pill, pagers, phones, smartphones, and the move towards sitting indoors at computers and service-based/tertiary industries.
- Medico-environmental/dystopic/techno-chemical-biological factors like declining testosterone levels and sperm quality, plastic usage, and pollution/contamination (see again: the pill).
- Economic state, e.g. the (debatable) legacy of the Boomers.
- Societal fabric, e.g. anonymity (especially cities), the breakdown of marriage and community, the erosion of social trust, burning of the commons, and increasing defection in societal Prisoner's Dilemmas. [...]

I don't think, that the argument is defensible. It seems, as with the points made above, that you entertain a fundamentally flawed premise of implicit set of assumptions whereby a human nature is fundamentally shaped by epigenetic factors, and especially as a function of industrial and information age factors of very recent times (and entertain this position, perhaps, due to availability bias).

This is not the case. The long, worn-out and outstanding dispute between researchers about nature vs nurture has come to a conclusion that a human is, very roughly speaking, a product of both. But not all things are equal. Certain brain structures are much more evolutionarily older than others. Your brain stem is older than your limbic system and your limbic system is older than your neocortex. Without going into specifics, a very rough difference in the evolutionary age between limbic system and neocortex is that the former is about 150-200 million years old and than the latter at most a few million years old.

And it just happens that attraction, bonding, emotions, sex are associated with amygdala, cingulate gyrus, hippocampus, hypothalamus and other structures that constitute limbic system. This system hasn't changed much over last 200 years (even less so in the last 20 years!), however, like all brain structures, it is neuroplastic, thus environment (especially during early age) does make changes (especially in regard to learning and memory formation in the hippocampus). Yet, some fundamental functions are genetically encoded and can only be slightly modified through the experience. Generally, the more primitive the structures, the less alterable they seem to be. But it still shows that the environment, the experience somewhat modify what there already is - we aren't blank slates that just absorb the environment and experience like sponges and become a functioning system that was nurtured only and only through the most immediate surroundings.

The game aims at systematic accumulation, description and explanation of courtship related behaviours and, maybe one day, a set of methodological tool will be build validating empirical research. The goal is to understand in actionable terms the neurobiological underpinnings of courtship and mating behaviours that have been implemented both by a neanderthal and by a homo faber. The game is still the same, whatever its name under superficial differences. However, these minor, recent changes don't mean that fundamental neurobiological behaviour changed significantly for the last 20 or 50 years. The limbic system, as I mentioned, is very old and emerged some 150-200 million years ago. There is an incredibly vast chasm between its age and superficially changed behaviours of females over the last 50 or 200 years. The socio-economic changes of our daily lives do influence our behaviour but fundamental neurobiological premises relating to sex and reproduction are for the most part the way they were.

You can still go to a bar and see most women passive and almost all courtship initiated by men. The same thing happens online (Bumble doesn't count as it forces women's hand. And nightgame, social circle game and all other niche-games are just variants of the same stuff). Man acts, woman reacts. The content is the same, the form slightly different. The sexual market ratios influence the choices but women still want the same stuff - good genes expressed in good phenotypic traits of good height, bilateral symmetry, athleticism, intelligence, wit, altruism, decisiveness, dominance and so forth.

Understand how to deliver these desirable traits (as long as you possess minimum viable confluence of desirable traits - otherwise don't bother chasing 8+ girls because game doesn't let you game the system - it allows you to deliver real value on your terms, this needs to be understood) strategically with the use of game to improve your odds, and you will get as close as possible to open the "secret" door to a very ancient mating code.