ksbms, good thoughts. I'm struggling to find anything significant to disagree with in your post. Yet I don't feel my original position is much weakened. so we're probably talking past each other and/or placing our emphases differently.
I think it's partly us using 'game' with different things in mind.
When I say 'game as we know it' or 'classical/early modern game', I'm referring to something more specific than the most general level attraction triggers/behaviour classes whose impact on the girl is mediated by e.g. her limbic system or other systems.
I'm referring to the specific male behaviours in (to try to define extensionally rather than intensionally, at the risk of missing something I'm referring to):
(A) 'Classical' and 'later classic' modern night game, e.g. Mystery, Style, Roissy, Roosh.
(B) 'Golden-era' and slightly later modern daygame, e.g. Roosh, the London guys, Good Looking Loser.
Where the behaviours would be e.g. peacocking, opinion openers, 'group' theory (e.g. pawning), 'wait two days to text her back', pet shop openers/GALNUC, etc.
That's the level of specificity I'm talking about.
Agreed that seemingly the earlier the evolution of the regulator, the more dominant its particular contribution to the girl's response.
But in any given context (guy/girl pair, place, time, etc.), the best specific action to max out the girl's response in each part of her brain, can differ.
Let's simplify and say her response decomposes into a linear combination over responses from presumed-to-be-independent basis brain regions, and further suppose that 90% of her response is limbic.
Then that's good to know, but you still have to know how to get 100% of that 90%.
You could run the same game in two different contexts--one in a jam-packed Western city in the present day, and one in some situation where you're the last man on earth. It's plausible you'll get a very different reaction (or fraction of that 90%) simply due to that difference in context, rather than due to any different in the game being run.
Or consider: Watching porn is notorious for the stimulus response decreasing in periods of high consumption. Nominally you're receiving the same (super)stimulus in either case, but in practice your response is determined in a more complex fashion depending on how your brain is currently wired and trained by other stuff you've seen (recently).
Her response isn't just mediated independently by each of her brain regions in isolation--it's determined in relation to her past experiences, current opportunities, etc.
I think we're in agreement on this relativity of her response to other factors, since you say:
Conditional on all else remaining equal, one certainly maxes out one's attractiveness by maxing out factors like athleticism in isolation from the broader market. But how much you get by maxing out these isolated factors, depends on the broader context.
Quite the opposite. I lean more towards putting the emphasis on nature (very crudely, insomuch as such a statement is even meaningful: on average, everything is 80% nature and 20% nurture). It's exactly because of the primacy I assign to nature (i.e. the innate instructions encoding the girl's responses to her environment / incoming game/ incoming stimuli), as the causal origin of the attraction pathway, that leads me to what I said above.
For example, there are very deep historical/ev psych reasons for women to prefer (all else being equal) to know a guy before sleeping with him. This (contingent) evolved aspect of the female brain or of evolved deep culture, manifests even more contingently in the preference for girls to sleep with guys they've vetted on social media apps, over a guy they haven't vetted.
So I can say 'social media has made classical game harder because unvetted pickup guys are now competing against vetted guys in the sphere of casual sex'. And it might look like an 'epigenetic'/social/nurture factor. But really it's the differing counterfactual manifestations of the innate factor in differing social contexts.
I think it's partly us using 'game' with different things in mind.
When I say 'game as we know it' or 'classical/early modern game', I'm referring to something more specific than the most general level attraction triggers/behaviour classes whose impact on the girl is mediated by e.g. her limbic system or other systems.
I'm referring to the specific male behaviours in (to try to define extensionally rather than intensionally, at the risk of missing something I'm referring to):
(A) 'Classical' and 'later classic' modern night game, e.g. Mystery, Style, Roissy, Roosh.
(B) 'Golden-era' and slightly later modern daygame, e.g. Roosh, the London guys, Good Looking Loser.
Where the behaviours would be e.g. peacocking, opinion openers, 'group' theory (e.g. pawning), 'wait two days to text her back', pet shop openers/GALNUC, etc.
That's the level of specificity I'm talking about.
Agreed that seemingly the earlier the evolution of the regulator, the more dominant its particular contribution to the girl's response.
But in any given context (guy/girl pair, place, time, etc.), the best specific action to max out the girl's response in each part of her brain, can differ.
Let's simplify and say her response decomposes into a linear combination over responses from presumed-to-be-independent basis brain regions, and further suppose that 90% of her response is limbic.
Then that's good to know, but you still have to know how to get 100% of that 90%.
You could run the same game in two different contexts--one in a jam-packed Western city in the present day, and one in some situation where you're the last man on earth. It's plausible you'll get a very different reaction (or fraction of that 90%) simply due to that difference in context, rather than due to any different in the game being run.
Or consider: Watching porn is notorious for the stimulus response decreasing in periods of high consumption. Nominally you're receiving the same (super)stimulus in either case, but in practice your response is determined in a more complex fashion depending on how your brain is currently wired and trained by other stuff you've seen (recently).
Her response isn't just mediated independently by each of her brain regions in isolation--it's determined in relation to her past experiences, current opportunities, etc.
I think we're in agreement on this relativity of her response to other factors, since you say:
Quote: (03-12-2018 04:13 PM)ksbms Wrote:
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.
Conditional on all else remaining equal, one certainly maxes out one's attractiveness by maxing out factors like athleticism in isolation from the broader market. But how much you get by maxing out these isolated factors, depends on the broader context.
Quote: (03-12-2018 04:13 PM)ksbms Wrote:
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).
Quite the opposite. I lean more towards putting the emphasis on nature (very crudely, insomuch as such a statement is even meaningful: on average, everything is 80% nature and 20% nurture). It's exactly because of the primacy I assign to nature (i.e. the innate instructions encoding the girl's responses to her environment / incoming game/ incoming stimuli), as the causal origin of the attraction pathway, that leads me to what I said above.
For example, there are very deep historical/ev psych reasons for women to prefer (all else being equal) to know a guy before sleeping with him. This (contingent) evolved aspect of the female brain or of evolved deep culture, manifests even more contingently in the preference for girls to sleep with guys they've vetted on social media apps, over a guy they haven't vetted.
So I can say 'social media has made classical game harder because unvetted pickup guys are now competing against vetted guys in the sphere of casual sex'. And it might look like an 'epigenetic'/social/nurture factor. But really it's the differing counterfactual manifestations of the innate factor in differing social contexts.