Red Pill Logic: Of AWALT and Snowflakes

[Anonymous 6]

Not all women are like that” is a statement that most of us get in response when we present certain red pill ideas to men or women who are firmly anchored within the social narrative of relationships. Usually this is presented as a response when pointing out typical female behaviors such as branch swinging, solipsism, or hypergamy that have a tendency to cast females in somewhat of a negative light compared to their permanent state on the pedestal within the narrative.

This reaction is understandable as it challenges many deeply ingrained super-ego rules that we have internalized, in addition to many men having significant ego investment in their sexual strategy. Often the challenge has its roots in “I know a woman who is not like that” or “My mother is not like that“, which assumes that every woman manifests the same traits and behaviors to the exact same degree throughout her life.

In this essay I will argue that AWALT is more similar to a diagnostic construct in the field of psychology than it is to a law of nature in the hard sciences. Psychological diagnostic constructs are lists of traits and behaviors that manifest within this construct. Narcissistic personality disorder includes: Grandiosity, power fantasies, self-perception of being unique, needing admiration, sense of entitlement, interpersonal exploitation, unwillingness to empathize with others, intensely envious of others and a pompous demeanor. In order to receive the diagnosis one must manifest traits beyond a given threshold, for instance 5 out of 9.

Depending on situation, one can also manifest these traits in varying frequencies and intensity that changes with context and over time. Thus a person may be diagnosed one time, and not diagnosed the next time.

The AWALT Cluster

When one attempts to create a diagnosis in the field of psychology, one identifies behaviors that occur jointly and that fit within a certain construct. The Hare PCL-R identifies 20 personality traits that have been observed in psychopaths, this is applied in a semi-structured interview where the diagnostician attempts to determine if, and to what degree a person manifests those traits. In the same manner one can create an “AWALT Cluster” of traits that tend to manifest within a given observed population. In the case of AWALT, this list differs somewhat from author to author, but usually includes [1]:

Solipsism – The tendency of a women to be unable to process information as outside of their own experience of it.
Hypergamy – The tendency of a woman to seek to maximize the resources gained from her sexuality.
Machiavellianism – The tendency of women to be more manipulative and cunning than men.
Immaturity – The tendency of women not to mature much despite advanced degrees and impressive careers.
I would personally add some traits from psychopathy and narcissism to this list. These traits manifest in the form of behavior such as being unable to process her own culpability when bad things happen, a tendency to branch swing, building a stable of orbiters and a lack of willingness to accept personal responsibility. This is no different than how someone with borderline personality disorder manifests “Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment” [2] which is arguably caused due to problem with object-constancy [3]. For instance, hypergamy is a mechanism by which women seek to obtain maximal outcomes from their sexuality, in some historical contexts this was securing the husband with the best alpha genetics and resources, at present this means securing alpha male genetics, and a beta male to provide for her and the children of the alpha.

Thus, AWALT is a construct that consists of observed behavior that can be distilled into a handful of traits, that can be applied to varying contexts and situations depending on the needs of the user. Generally, there are 3 manners in which this construct can be applied, starting with Hard AWALT. Much as with a psychological construct, this is to some extent subject to the perspective of the person who seeks to apply it, the context in which it s applied and the context of the subject.

The Hard AWALT

People who argue from this perspective have adopted what can be themed as “hard AWALT“, what this means is that every single woman inherently will engage in the behaviors that are contained within the AWALT cluster, and they will do so in an identical manner to the same degree. They often take the perspective that AWALT is akin to a universal law, meaning that if one can identify a single exception, this invalidates the law in its entirety. The interpretation in this perspective is synonymous with “All women are like this 100% of the time, in a 100% identical manner.” If one were to break this down into a syllogism it would take the form of “If A, then B, not B, therefore not A”.

Premise 1: If AWALT is valid, then all women are like that.

Premise 2: This woman is not like that.

Conclusion: Therefore, not all women are like that.

The problem here is that the soundness of premise 1 and premise 2 can be called into question. In Premise A, there is always a question of the validity of the AWALT construct, what behaviors are included, which are not included and is it a variable or a constant? Meaning, are all women identical both in their presentation and degree of manifestation of AWALT or do they differ? In Premise 2, there is an observational problem, that stems from Premise 1, in that it assumes that AWALT is a constant as an axiom.

The error is the assumption that all women manifest all the same AWALT traits, to the same degree and as a constant. Thus, if an exception can be found, where a woman either not manifesting the behaviors at that moment, such as a woman who recently married a dutiful beta during her epiphany phase, and has not hit the “I’m not happy stage“, the validity of the construct is called into question, rather than the accuracy of the observation.

Soft AWALT

In the introduction I make the case that manifestations can vary over time. For instance, a person who suffers from depression may manifest symptoms for a few months, a year, even a decade, however they may also manifest symptoms for a short period of time, then show no symptoms, only to relapse months, years or decades later . This is a more accurate vision of reality as it relates to human psychology, namely an existence in a constant state of change, rather than a permanently fixed state.

This means that just because she is manifesting few AWALT traits to a low degree at the moment, it does not mean that she does not have the innate capacity for doing so at a higher frequency and volume. It also means that just because she is not manifesting the AWALT traits at present, that she lacks the capacity to do so. This translates into a model of AWALT wherein it is context-specific. Therefore, the epiphany phase woman who locks down a solid beta provider when she desires to do so will probably show few AWALT traits, if any during the first few years, and after that her traits may start increasing again prior to the “I’m not happy” stage. These two stages largely relating to hypergamy, and her shifting perception of what hypergamic optimization for her represents.

For her at 32, when she was single, with no children, she realized that she wanted to do the right thing, so she found one of her beta orbiters, married him and possibly got pregnant. Then as she has given birth, has a child or two, and has slowly transformed the dutiful beta into the perfect doormat her 32 year old self desired, she realizes that the tingles are missing. Once this happens, she starts feeling nostalgic about her life in her early 20s, which triggers her hypergamy, and leads to the divorce.

Contextual AWALT

The argument thus far presented points towards a model of AWALT that is conditional, which I have themed contextual AWALT. A conditional model can be broken down into a series of if statements, which lead to an outcome. For instance, one may not manifest any symptoms in a relatively relaxed state, but if one experiences increased stress, symptoms tend to re-emerge.

I’ve read articles covering “contextual alphas” before, this meaning men who are perceived as alpha due to the context that they are within, for instance a University professor in the lecture hall or a cop in uniform . In the same manner, AWALT is contextual in that the behaviors manifest differently based on the woman’s context. It is influenced by among others her peers, her stage in the sexual market place, her perceived opportunities in the sexual market place, and a range of other factors. This is where NAWALT comes from, in that people observe a woman in a given context, notice that she does not appear to be manifesting many, if any of the traits or behaviors outlined under the AWALT cluster, and thus conclude that she lacks the inherent traits.

This is somewhat paradoxical to me that men and women alike who are self proclaimed “red pill”, still do not understand that asserting that a woman does not fit the rule at a given moment, has somehow progressed past it, as it is the equivalent of naming car salesman who isn’t dishonest, and asserting that the heuristic of dishonest car salesmen is inaccurate. A woman may manifest no traits of AWALT in a given moment, yet have a history of the behaviors, and may fall back on them later.

Summary and Conclusions

Part of me wonders if the reason why certain behaviors escaped detection for so long is due to their contextual and varied nature, combined with a society that was intuitively aware of this behavior and thus sought to police it. Once the social structures that policed the behavior lost power, they emerged in purer forms with the result being the formation of red pill theory. Society sought to control female behavior, while at the same time convince men that this controlled version of female nature is their innate state, in order to convince men to compromise their sexual strategy for the greater good. The rejection of this false narrative often results in a great deal of pain for men who have constructed their life vision around it, thus they attempt to discredit red pill theory in an effort to retain their illusions.

The key to AWALT is that all women manifest these traits to varying degrees, however they may manifest different behaviors that stem from these traits. The trouble and arguments regarding NAWALT takes place when people treat this as a synonym for “All women are identical” rather than “All women share the same traits, and behaviors, yet to varying degrees and manifest them differently“. However, “AWSTSTBYTVDADM” is a really horrible acronym.

Furthermore, if one thinks of “The Red Pill” as an “AA for Beta Males“, it is fully possible that some recovering alcoholics can handle having a drink once in a while, however this does not mean that it’s a good idea for every member of AA to keep having a sip once in a while. For most this leads to the re-establishment of bad habits.

Often times when men argue “NAWALT” this is based in their desire to keep the blue pill fantasy alive, and adopt the purple pill. When a woman argues in favor of “NAWALT” this stems from the need for men to believe that their unicorn is out there to enable the dualistic female sexual strategy.

[IRuleMeParticipant]

Unless a woman is willing to live homeless on the street, then her inherent nature to seek a person with higher economical status than herself. ALL women hypergamy. The idea of something outside the realm of what they have been taunt and raised into as the status quo falls outside their reality. Ask every guy not only on here, but in public if by the 2nd date they’ve been asked about their finances in some way. I’m sure everyone will answer a resounding “YES”. Women will not devote a portion of their lives to a guy they perceive lacks value. They’ve been raised with the societal fallacy of finding a providable suitor, settling down, and having children.

i.e.

THEY KNOW THE CLOCK IS TICKING

Therefore they must make every bit of time count. So every man is screened. In fact, on a subconscious level, before you even talk to a woman, the moment she sees you, internally she’s scanning you for perceived value. And to some degree she’s already answered that question in her mind based solely on your appearance before you’ve even talked to her.

[Yojimbo RockfordParticipant 348]

I think this essay is just…just…wow. Your breakdown of the AWALT mechanism is probably the most articulate postulate on the subject I have ever read. There have been aspects of the NAWALT argument that I thought were somewhat fallacious, but couldn’t quite put my finger on it til now.

You have given me much to ponder. Thank you.

[Anonymous 2]

This man deserves a medal. Someone promote him or something. This is one of the greatest and most inspirational things I have ever been able to read.

[SamsquanchParticipant 4226]

Brilliant post Venom

Pack your flight gear, next stop is Top Gun.

[LosPukeParticipant 514]

I’m not sure if Top Gun is sufficient enough for this post. This essay belongs in the Blog section of the website. Mind blown. Much talent, much respect.

[NeroParticipant 1466]

This was a fantastic piece of work. Unfortunately, it’s probably not worth the time and effort in trying to figure out the emotional reasoning, hamster wheel nature of women. They simply have no constants when it comes to behavior EXCEPT for being impulsive and unpredictable. THAT is their CONSTANT.

[Author]

Posts