The definitive thread on NAWALT [LONG ATTENTION SPAN ONLY]

rrrrrr8526

rrrrrr8526

kpopmaxxer
Joined
Sep 2, 2020
Posts
2,634
Reputation
4,271
NAWALT (Not All Women Are Like That) is a well known and recurring acronym in the MGTOW (Men going their own way) community. If you utter NAWALT in such circles you will often be mocked and thrown out. In reality NAWALT is a very complex subject and one on which a man’s life plan and policy must depend to some extent. These are my observations on the subject.

  1. NAWALT 101: starting from the most depressing aspect, women are intrinsically invested in concealing their nature. Manipulation is the most effective survival strategy of a party which lives at the expense of another (in particular, a sentient parasite of a sentient host). In the courts of ancient Europe, fortunes were made and lost based on fluid alliances, subterfuge, subtle insinuations, and just generally being a courtier. Machiavelli wrote extensively about this. For any manipulation to be effective, the manipulation must be covert. Governments and politicians are in this trade. They don’t tell you their policies. They appeal to your emotional buttons – babies, families, equality, kindness, and so forth. And they exploit the willful ignorance and laziness of the masses. As Ford said “if people knew how the banking system works there would be a revolution”. Unfortunately, human females are not just circumstantial manipulators, but biologically evolved manipulators. To be adept at deception, nature has made them actually unaware of what they really want, respond to and think. This is why to be ‘successful’ with women you must ignore all they say and act according to what they actually respond to. Women do not have the monopoly on adaptive, functional self-deception. Quacks too believe their own bullshit. David Icke is making millions not by lying to people but by actually believing that Saturn has a powerful influence on our DNA and that politicians are lizards. It is actually a generic human trait that people believe whatever is in their interest to convince others of. Therefore sadly, in the vast majority of cases, any statement uttered by a woman in reference to how women are, and in particular any remark which – despite tone and apparent intention - has the net effect of silencing and/or shaming a man who is trying to explain, or at least think about, or come to terms with how women are and behave – is to be interpreted as nothing more than aggression. You are being silenced for a reason. The reason is that women are invested in you not knowing about them. If you knew about them – their genes reason, and rightly so – you would never dream of having anything to do with them. So they will – often involuntarily and subconsciously - divulge fake information and generally refute any assertion that jeopardizes their position. Here, a well-intentioned person is quickly defeated in this unfair game – such a person will automatically think “I am not a woman, surely women know themselves better than I can ever know them, therefore their utterances have at least a bit of validity”. This completely ignores the ruthless reality of our evolutionary past and the fact that “if you take women advice from women you’ll never get laid” (another popular and sadly true meme, this time from the PUA community). I will talk about exceptions but any exception needs to be addressed from the initial standpoint of this fundamental awareness, that obfuscation is the norm, and honesty a very rare occurrence. So, the first layer of knowledge of NAWALT is that it is a woman’s attack on your attempt to utilize your superior rationality to make sense of them. It turns your attempts at critical thinking and generalization (intended in the positive way, as abstracting patterns from a set of observations) into something you ought to feel guilty about. If you think, you are a bad person. Therefore, please continue to be stupid and ignorant, and get played. NAWALT is also to a large extent a defense mechanism by males who just cannot accept reality and will not have their dream ripped away from them. These males are called “blue-pill” males. They will watch the same patterns repeat again and again, and still cling on to NAWALT, because, well, it is a plausible theory that cannot be disproved until you date every single woman on earth. And even then, by the time you’ve dated 4 billion women the first one may have changed. So NAWALT is often a weapon used by both men and women against men
  2. On NAWALT’s plausibility: the second way in which a well-intentioned person is quickly defeated is by naively assumes that different people must be significantly different in all respects, “because that’s just how people are”. Just like not every used car salesman is a crook, and not every doctor is rich, and not every homeless person is lazy, and not every black person sings rap and plays basketball, also women cannot possibly be all the same. Western culture shows very deep scars and guilt from prior times of extreme discrimination based on group and race, and for this reason the only position that is socially acceptable nowadays is the position that states that “no general statement can ever be made about any person”. This in a way respects what I perceive to be a fundamental right of every individual, that of being judged by their own actions. And at the same time it violates another fundamental right of every individual, that of trying to make sense of the real patterns that the world presents. My position on this is simple: generalizations are absolutely allowable as long as the person clearly considers the pros and cons of acting on them. If I visit a used car salesman, I may not care whether he is a crook or not, and I do not have the time or energy or means to find out. All I know is that I’ve been cheated before, and this new person belongs to the same group, and to the best of my knowledge it is more likely than not that he too will attempt to cheat me – furthermore I have a theoretical basis for supposing that that will be the case. Not race or shamanism, but rather the fact that our interests are clearly not aligned. I want to get the best car I can for my money, and he wants to have the largest profit possible from selling any car, and in particular cars that are hard to sell because no one wants them. I also have an evolutionary argument, not bullet proof but plausible: more deceptive car salesmen are likely to be more successful, and so the car salesman I meet today will have been the one that’s been a better deceiver in the past. Under this circumstance it is my decision and my prerogative to assume that he will be dishonest – and I will take all possible precautions to avoid being ripped off. Does it mean that I will cut his throat with a blade? No. Does it mean I’m going to wait for him at night and jump him? No. All it means is that I am going to act in my best interest by assuming dishonesty and acting according to those premises. Think about it this way. I have no power to assess whether he is honest or not. Assuming dishonesty is one of very few options available to me, and likely the least risky. The salesman on the other hand has a lot of power in trying to prove his honesty. He could give you the phone number of other dealers and ask you to shop around. He could put absolutely no pressure on you, and recommend that you think it over before making a decision. He could show you the purchase receipt for the car and prove that they are only making an honest margin on it. Is he compelled to act like that? No, for sure. But could he? Of course he could. So are you a bad person for not trusting that person when it is so much easier for him to prove his intentions than for you to discover them? I don’t think so. A woman could similarly put herself in a position from which she cannot harm you (for instance by offering to sign a prenup, if those things are even worth anything, or getting some verifiable form of contraceptive, or asking you to keep separate bank accounts). I haven’t heard of this ever happening to anyone.

  3. Mistrust is socially unacceptable: feigning trust, demanding reciprocity and then acting based on lack of trust and deceiving, is an optimal survival strategy, and this is embedded in our genes by the prevalent desire to be seen as friendly, amicable, trusting and generally socially smooth, followed by moments of greed in which one “just couldn’t help it”. Displaying lack of trust from the beginning always puts you in a vulnerable position socially speaking. It is very easy to attack a person who shows mistrust, and to throw guilt trips at them. In reality a person who has nothing to hide will assume mistrust in others, because they know that their honesty is rare. They will not resent scrutiny or suspicions, in fact they will cooperate, so that the other party can discover that this time, they got lucky. So be extremely suspicious of people who try to make you feel guilty for being suspicious. They want you vulnerable because they are predators.
  4. Generalization is also socially unacceptable: every statement is incorrect to some extent. The question is not which statement is completely true – there aren’t any. The question is, what statement is useful. A 99% statement is often very useful. Even 80% is, even 51% is. Sometimes even a 0.001% true statement is useful (“if you walk alone at night you will get attacked”). The real question is “how much do you lose if you are wrong” vs “how much do you gain if you are right”. This is simply Bayesian reasoning, i.e. being a rational agent. These estimates will vary from person to person, as will the “tolerance threshold” for how much generalization is acceptable. Someone who must work at night, say a policeman, will pay a heavy price for believing that “walking at night gets you in trouble” – he may well not be able to do his job because of that. Someone who has no reason whatsoever to walk at night and can go places throughout the day can instead very safely and gainfully hold that belief: nothing is lost, and harm, however unlikely, is prevented, with a net gain.
  5. Some traits are very accurately reproduced: although people differ vastly in behavior, there are parts of people that are very reliably reproduced by nature. Very few people have 6 fingers in one hand. Very few people have an eye on their forehead. Nature can be extremely repeatable when it wants. Very few people like to drink battery acid. You’ll probably never in your life meet one person who has 6 fingers in a hand, or a person who has an eye on their forehead, or a person who likes battery acid, even if you look for this sort of person. We all have stereoscopic vision and can walk upright. It takes a phenomenal amount of coordination to get neurons to fire in the right way to achieve a coherent system that can walk up in the morning and find a cubicle to sit in. Do not underestimate nature’s power to deploy reliably when it wants. Don’t assume that variability in human traits must exist along all dimensions and for all individuals. Most human variability is planned (i.e. the amount of variability gets selected to be optimal), and each trait is variable to a different extent. We have different races, and different blood types, but somehow we all have only one nose and in the same spot. Only a tiny bit of human variation arises from construction faults. And frankly one could survive with a nose on his forehead, whereas by botching mating strategy one’s genes are as good as dead so does that mean that it is more likely to find a person with their nose on their forehead than a woman who won’t manipulate?
  6. The traits that are reproduced with the highest fidelity in humans are those that were adaptive across all evolutionary time periods (have been with us since forever). There was never a point in time in which having 6 fingers was better, or having your stereoscopic vision messed up was better, or frying your intestines was better. Seemingly, there was never a time in which it paid off for a woman to be completely at the mercy of her more intelligent, physically stronger partner, without any sort of hook into his psychology, without ever trying to weaken his spirit and make him isolated and dependent on her. Just like there wasn’t ever a time in which it paid off for a man to like wrinkled skin. NAMALT! Not all men are like that – some actually like older women. That is a production flaw. These people are collateral damage. They exist. The fact that they exist does not make the generalization that “men like smooth skin and neoteny” wrong. It just makes it imperfectly true. How much imperfection you can tolerate depends again on how much you stand to gain and lose by giving how much credence to this statement. If you are young and deciding whether to tone and moisturize your skin, it is in your interest to believe AMALT, all men will like you more (all else being equal) if your skin looks good. If you are 70 though, and believing AMALT will lead to feeling that you cannot possibly have value for a man ever again, and the only option left to you at that point is to just accept being alone and unloved (of course assuming, which is not always the case, that that is an undesirable state to you) – then no, you should probably believe NAMALT! I know two guys who like older women. One married one. Here, believing AMALT would have a high cost. It is far better to believe NAMALT and deal with some non-zero odds of finding a companion than believing AMALT even though for the most part AMALT is correct and NAMALT is incorrect and a rare exception.
  7. Humans are terrified by loneliness, but what they are even more terrified of is uncertainty. When a person has had very traumatic experiences in some field they just “cross it off”, which is sad, because it removes power from them, and makes them a helpless victim of “initial conditions”. For instance a person may have very bad experiences with money and work. They may end up feeling worthless, and that money is impossible to have, and that rich people are just born that way, or that they are all cheaters, or something similar. This is simply a tool for self protection. Being uncertain, trying and failing, hurts your ego more than it hurts to not have that which you desire. To avoid this ultimate pain of hope and disillusionment, and facing uncertainty, people just give up what they desire. I find that this is a weak way to approach life, and although it may work in the short term to alleviate suffering, in the long term it erodes your self esteem and leaves you in a very bad condition. It is far better to stand up and fight to the last day that you live for what you wanted, and be always comforted by the fact that, if you don’t get what you needed, it won’t have been your fault. There is a sort of heroism required here, similar to when your army is losing, and instead of trying a hopeless escape, you decide to die with valor, and just run into the enemy and try to slay as many of them as you can. Not everyone can be heroic. Whether heroism works for you psychologically is something that you must choose deliberately, not based on whether a bro tells you AWALT or NAWALT.
  8. For me the jury is still out on AWALT vs NAWALT and I do feel like I’ve got a good deal of heroism in me, or perhaps it is simply that my ego just won’t die. I definitely had experiences with women who did not try to harm me or manipulate me in the past. These weren’t great relationships by any stretch of the imagination, there was a huge gap in intelligence, drive, and very low psychological compatibility. But I am still grateful for these experiences because if I had not had them, all evidence would point towards AWALT. I would be utterly convinced of AWALT with good theoretical grounding, an evolutionary argument for it and innumerable examples and reports from other men. The reason is that the jury is still out is that these were relationships in which I was not very invested. Therefore it is possible that the balance of power was skewed in my favor, and that is what kept the demons at bay. I didn’t get too attached, they never felt we were ‘a sealed deal’. One of them already had a husband, so I only covered the lover role.
  9. When one talks about “women” one is really referring to female survival strategies. It is entirely possible for a person with two X chromosomes to not follow these. If for instance, she is not attractive enough, she will be largely precluded from playing her feminine role. So you see women with very low attractiveness who are scientists, engineers, productive members of society. Scandalous! How dare I say that women with real jobs are not attractive. Yet it’s enough to walk into a club, and then into a hospital, and my statement is vindicated. Some women actually pay for the company of men who are more attractive than them. This role reversal clearly indicates that there is a power dynamic at play that transcends even gender, and is purely transactional. The party with lesser genetic value makes a financial contribution. This is also the case in many gay couples. Quite disgusting, and I’ve been in the position of being the party that gets paid, and declined firmly – but I know several of my male ‘friends’ who accepted wholeheartedly and entered an exploitative relationship with women (losing my respect in the process). Another reason a woman may not follow female survival strategies is that she has a masculine brain. INTJ/INTP types and Aspies fall in this category often. Here the distinction between NAWALT and AWALT becomes quite difficult. I don’t consider these “females brain who are not like that” but “female bodies who have very masculine brains” (and therefore aren’t like that). So AWALT and NAWALT can both be true at the same time. Another small hope there, though it is quite sad, that to get along with a woman one would look for defective units, because all the properly deployed ones are psychopathic. But that’s a small price to pay for love and peace. However, like every horror movie, there’s something ominous that didn’t die and got left behind… women who have masculine brains often have massive trauma as well, and/or other neurological sensitivities, or are schizoid, or borderlines - and you will then have to deal with previous trauma, personality disorders and so forth. But, as much as I hate personality disorders, I think that those can be worked out together provided both parties value the relationship and are willing to make sacrifices and use rationality as a tool and provided the woman in question is also very intelligent. With a properly deployed female brain on the other hand, either complete lack of agency or pathological daily assaults with absolutely no introspection to match constitute what I perceive to be an overwhelming obstacle in my case. You can’t milk a brick.
 
  • +1
  • Love it
  • JFL
Reactions: masterstixx, Hikicel69, AsGoodAsItGets and 15 others
haha u wanna suck my purple cock
 
  • +1
  • JFL
  • Love it
Reactions: thecel, Deleted member 10408, Deleted member 12611 and 2 others
SomeSomeFoxhound small
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: LampPostPrime, thecel, Amexmaxx and 2 others
So many words, would be a shame if I didn't...


 
  • JFL
  • Ugh..
  • Love it
Reactions: AsGoodAsItGets, thecel, lepo2317 and 2 others
good formatting I will read everything
 
  • Love it
  • JFL
Reactions: AsGoodAsItGets and rrrrrr8526
Read it bc every other thread is shit rn. I share the dilemma bc I aspire to a trad wife and a trad life for my kids. The conclusion I’ve come to is that all women can be like that. Given certain circumstances any chick will go degen. If a girl is raised with a strict father figure who protects her and preserves her purity, and then she gets married to a man with similar qualities and has a few kids in her teen years, its hard to imagine she’d go hoeing on tinder or something. I’m a Christian but Islam has great teaching on temptation, the nature of evil, and how to control women to maintain your society. I figure the best solution is find a cute jb church girl in a country with a lower age of consent, likely in EE. I’m also considering polygamy so that no single chick will have as much leverage over me. Maybe I’ll find one wife or multiple in EE. Maybe I’ll just polygamy max here in the states, as the collapsing economy may lead to a lot of chicks going from empowered to desperate. If they don’t have the power of family court or any better options to even survive, maybe a hoe can become a housewife if she’s one of 5-10 without much real power. I also look forward to social collapse leading to resurgence in rural trad America and thus jb church girl wives in the future. Might just establish myself in Missouri and find a Mormon stacylite to breed and recruit a local jb every now and then. TBD.

my b that’s so rambly. Typed longer then I expected and cbf to go back and format
 
  • +1
  • Love it
Reactions: copemaxxeer, LampPostPrime, PURE ARYAN GENETICS and 3 others
did you really type all that jfl at you
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: FreakkForLife, AsGoodAsItGets, LampPostPrime and 1 other person
 
NAWALT (Not All Women Are Like That) is a well known and recurring acronym in the MGTOW (Men going their own way) community. If you utter NAWALT in such circles you will often be mocked and thrown out. In reality NAWALT is a very complex subject and one on which a man’s life plan and policy must depend to some extent. These are my observations on the subject.

  1. NAWALT 101: starting from the most depressing aspect, women are intrinsically invested in concealing their nature. Manipulation is the most effective survival strategy of a party which lives at the expense of another (in particular, a sentient parasite of a sentient host). In the courts of ancient Europe, fortunes were made and lost based on fluid alliances, subterfuge, subtle insinuations, and just generally being a courtier. Machiavelli wrote extensively about this. For any manipulation to be effective, the manipulation must be covert. Governments and politicians are in this trade. They don’t tell you their policies. They appeal to your emotional buttons – babies, families, equality, kindness, and so forth. And they exploit the willful ignorance and laziness of the masses. As Ford said “if people knew how the banking system works there would be a revolution”. Unfortunately, human females are not just circumstantial manipulators, but biologically evolved manipulators. To be adept at deception, nature has made them actually unaware of what they really want, respond to and think. This is why to be ‘successful’ with women you must ignore all they say and act according to what they actually respond to. Women do not have the monopoly on adaptive, functional self-deception. Quacks too believe their own bullshit. David Icke is making millions not by lying to people but by actually believing that Saturn has a powerful influence on our DNA and that politicians are lizards. It is actually a generic human trait that people believe whatever is in their interest to convince others of. Therefore sadly, in the vast majority of cases, any statement uttered by a woman in reference to how women are, and in particular any remark which – despite tone and apparent intention - has the net effect of silencing and/or shaming a man who is trying to explain, or at least think about, or come to terms with how women are and behave – is to be interpreted as nothing more than aggression. You are being silenced for a reason. The reason is that women are invested in you not knowing about them. If you knew about them – their genes reason, and rightly so – you would never dream of having anything to do with them. So they will – often involuntarily and subconsciously - divulge fake information and generally refute any assertion that jeopardizes their position. Here, a well-intentioned person is quickly defeated in this unfair game – such a person will automatically think “I am not a woman, surely women know themselves better than I can ever know them, therefore their utterances have at least a bit of validity”. This completely ignores the ruthless reality of our evolutionary past and the fact that “if you take women advice from women you’ll never get laid” (another popular and sadly true meme, this time from the PUA community). I will talk about exceptions but any exception needs to be addressed from the initial standpoint of this fundamental awareness, that obfuscation is the norm, and honesty a very rare occurrence. So, the first layer of knowledge of NAWALT is that it is a woman’s attack on your attempt to utilize your superior rationality to make sense of them. It turns your attempts at critical thinking and generalization (intended in the positive way, as abstracting patterns from a set of observations) into something you ought to feel guilty about. If you think, you are a bad person. Therefore, please continue to be stupid and ignorant, and get played. NAWALT is also to a large extent a defense mechanism by males who just cannot accept reality and will not have their dream ripped away from them. These males are called “blue-pill” males. They will watch the same patterns repeat again and again, and still cling on to NAWALT, because, well, it is a plausible theory that cannot be disproved until you date every single woman on earth. And even then, by the time you’ve dated 4 billion women the first one may have changed. So NAWALT is often a weapon used by both men and women against men
  2. On NAWALT’s plausibility: the second way in which a well-intentioned person is quickly defeated is by naively assumes that different people must be significantly different in all respects, “because that’s just how people are”. Just like not every used car salesman is a crook, and not every doctor is rich, and not every homeless person is lazy, and not every black person sings rap and plays basketball, also women cannot possibly be all the same. Western culture shows very deep scars and guilt from prior times of extreme discrimination based on group and race, and for this reason the only position that is socially acceptable nowadays is the position that states that “no general statement can ever be made about any person”. This in a way respects what I perceive to be a fundamental right of every individual, that of being judged by their own actions. And at the same time it violates another fundamental right of every individual, that of trying to make sense of the real patterns that the world presents. My position on this is simple: generalizations are absolutely allowable as long as the person clearly considers the pros and cons of acting on them. If I visit a used car salesman, I may not care whether he is a crook or not, and I do not have the time or energy or means to find out. All I know is that I’ve been cheated before, and this new person belongs to the same group, and to the best of my knowledge it is more likely than not that he too will attempt to cheat me – furthermore I have a theoretical basis for supposing that that will be the case. Not race or shamanism, but rather the fact that our interests are clearly not aligned. I want to get the best car I can for my money, and he wants to have the largest profit possible from selling any car, and in particular cars that are hard to sell because no one wants them. I also have an evolutionary argument, not bullet proof but plausible: more deceptive car salesmen are likely to be more successful, and so the car salesman I meet today will have been the one that’s been a better deceiver in the past. Under this circumstance it is my decision and my prerogative to assume that he will be dishonest – and I will take all possible precautions to avoid being ripped off. Does it mean that I will cut his throat with a blade? No. Does it mean I’m going to wait for him at night and jump him? No. All it means is that I am going to act in my best interest by assuming dishonesty and acting according to those premises. Think about it this way. I have no power to assess whether he is honest or not. Assuming dishonesty is one of very few options available to me, and likely the least risky. The salesman on the other hand has a lot of power in trying to prove his honesty. He could give you the phone number of other dealers and ask you to shop around. He could put absolutely no pressure on you, and recommend that you think it over before making a decision. He could show you the purchase receipt for the car and prove that they are only making an honest margin on it. Is he compelled to act like that? No, for sure. But could he? Of course he could. So are you a bad person for not trusting that person when it is so much easier for him to prove his intentions than for you to discover them? I don’t think so. A woman could similarly put herself in a position from which she cannot harm you (for instance by offering to sign a prenup, if those things are even worth anything, or getting some verifiable form of contraceptive, or asking you to keep separate bank accounts). I haven’t heard of this ever happening to anyone.

  3. Mistrust is socially unacceptable: feigning trust, demanding reciprocity and then acting based on lack of trust and deceiving, is an optimal survival strategy, and this is embedded in our genes by the prevalent desire to be seen as friendly, amicable, trusting and generally socially smooth, followed by moments of greed in which one “just couldn’t help it”. Displaying lack of trust from the beginning always puts you in a vulnerable position socially speaking. It is very easy to attack a person who shows mistrust, and to throw guilt trips at them. In reality a person who has nothing to hide will assume mistrust in others, because they know that their honesty is rare. They will not resent scrutiny or suspicions, in fact they will cooperate, so that the other party can discover that this time, they got lucky. So be extremely suspicious of people who try to make you feel guilty for being suspicious. They want you vulnerable because they are predators.
  4. Generalization is also socially unacceptable: every statement is incorrect to some extent. The question is not which statement is completely true – there aren’t any. The question is, what statement is useful. A 99% statement is often very useful. Even 80% is, even 51% is. Sometimes even a 0.001% true statement is useful (“if you walk alone at night you will get attacked”). The real question is “how much do you lose if you are wrong” vs “how much do you gain if you are right”. This is simply Bayesian reasoning, i.e. being a rational agent. These estimates will vary from person to person, as will the “tolerance threshold” for how much generalization is acceptable. Someone who must work at night, say a policeman, will pay a heavy price for believing that “walking at night gets you in trouble” – he may well not be able to do his job because of that. Someone who has no reason whatsoever to walk at night and can go places throughout the day can instead very safely and gainfully hold that belief: nothing is lost, and harm, however unlikely, is prevented, with a net gain.
  5. Some traits are very accurately reproduced: although people differ vastly in behavior, there are parts of people that are very reliably reproduced by nature. Very few people have 6 fingers in one hand. Very few people have an eye on their forehead. Nature can be extremely repeatable when it wants. Very few people like to drink battery acid. You’ll probably never in your life meet one person who has 6 fingers in a hand, or a person who has an eye on their forehead, or a person who likes battery acid, even if you look for this sort of person. We all have stereoscopic vision and can walk upright. It takes a phenomenal amount of coordination to get neurons to fire in the right way to achieve a coherent system that can walk up in the morning and find a cubicle to sit in. Do not underestimate nature’s power to deploy reliably when it wants. Don’t assume that variability in human traits must exist along all dimensions and for all individuals. Most human variability is planned (i.e. the amount of variability gets selected to be optimal), and each trait is variable to a different extent. We have different races, and different blood types, but somehow we all have only one nose and in the same spot. Only a tiny bit of human variation arises from construction faults. And frankly one could survive with a nose on his forehead, whereas by botching mating strategy one’s genes are as good as dead so does that mean that it is more likely to find a person with their nose on their forehead than a woman who won’t manipulate?
  6. The traits that are reproduced with the highest fidelity in humans are those that were adaptive across all evolutionary time periods (have been with us since forever). There was never a point in time in which having 6 fingers was better, or having your stereoscopic vision messed up was better, or frying your intestines was better. Seemingly, there was never a time in which it paid off for a woman to be completely at the mercy of her more intelligent, physically stronger partner, without any sort of hook into his psychology, without ever trying to weaken his spirit and make him isolated and dependent on her. Just like there wasn’t ever a time in which it paid off for a man to like wrinkled skin. NAMALT! Not all men are like that – some actually like older women. That is a production flaw. These people are collateral damage. They exist. The fact that they exist does not make the generalization that “men like smooth skin and neoteny” wrong. It just makes it imperfectly true. How much imperfection you can tolerate depends again on how much you stand to gain and lose by giving how much credence to this statement. If you are young and deciding whether to tone and moisturize your skin, it is in your interest to believe AMALT, all men will like you more (all else being equal) if your skin looks good. If you are 70 though, and believing AMALT will lead to feeling that you cannot possibly have value for a man ever again, and the only option left to you at that point is to just accept being alone and unloved (of course assuming, which is not always the case, that that is an undesirable state to you) – then no, you should probably believe NAMALT! I know two guys who like older women. One married one. Here, believing AMALT would have a high cost. It is far better to believe NAMALT and deal with some non-zero odds of finding a companion than believing AMALT even though for the most part AMALT is correct and NAMALT is incorrect and a rare exception.
  7. Humans are terrified by loneliness, but what they are even more terrified of is uncertainty. When a person has had very traumatic experiences in some field they just “cross it off”, which is sad, because it removes power from them, and makes them a helpless victim of “initial conditions”. For instance a person may have very bad experiences with money and work. They may end up feeling worthless, and that money is impossible to have, and that rich people are just born that way, or that they are all cheaters, or something similar. This is simply a tool for self protection. Being uncertain, trying and failing, hurts your ego more than it hurts to not have that which you desire. To avoid this ultimate pain of hope and disillusionment, and facing uncertainty, people just give up what they desire. I find that this is a weak way to approach life, and although it may work in the short term to alleviate suffering, in the long term it erodes your self esteem and leaves you in a very bad condition. It is far better to stand up and fight to the last day that you live for what you wanted, and be always comforted by the fact that, if you don’t get what you needed, it won’t have been your fault. There is a sort of heroism required here, similar to when your army is losing, and instead of trying a hopeless escape, you decide to die with valor, and just run into the enemy and try to slay as many of them as you can. Not everyone can be heroic. Whether heroism works for you psychologically is something that you must choose deliberately, not based on whether a bro tells you AWALT or NAWALT.
  8. For me the jury is still out on AWALT vs NAWALT and I do feel like I’ve got a good deal of heroism in me, or perhaps it is simply that my ego just won’t die. I definitely had experiences with women who did not try to harm me or manipulate me in the past. These weren’t great relationships by any stretch of the imagination, there was a huge gap in intelligence, drive, and very low psychological compatibility. But I am still grateful for these experiences because if I had not had them, all evidence would point towards AWALT. I would be utterly convinced of AWALT with good theoretical grounding, an evolutionary argument for it and innumerable examples and reports from other men. The reason is that the jury is still out is that these were relationships in which I was not very invested. Therefore it is possible that the balance of power was skewed in my favor, and that is what kept the demons at bay. I didn’t get too attached, they never felt we were ‘a sealed deal’. One of them already had a husband, so I only covered the lover role.
  9. When one talks about “women” one is really referring to female survival strategies. It is entirely possible for a person with two X chromosomes to not follow these. If for instance, she is not attractive enough, she will be largely precluded from playing her feminine role. So you see women with very low attractiveness who are scientists, engineers, productive members of society. Scandalous! How dare I say that women with real jobs are not attractive. Yet it’s enough to walk into a club, and then into a hospital, and my statement is vindicated. Some women actually pay for the company of men who are more attractive than them. This role reversal clearly indicates that there is a power dynamic at play that transcends even gender, and is purely transactional. The party with lesser genetic value makes a financial contribution. This is also the case in many gay couples. Quite disgusting, and I’ve been in the position of being the party that gets paid, and declined firmly – but I know several of my male ‘friends’ who accepted wholeheartedly and entered an exploitative relationship with women (losing my respect in the process). Another reason a woman may not follow female survival strategies is that she has a masculine brain. INTJ/INTP types and Aspies fall in this category often. Here the distinction between NAWALT and AWALT becomes quite difficult. I don’t consider these “females brain who are not like that” but “female bodies who have very masculine brains” (and therefore aren’t like that). So AWALT and NAWALT can both be true at the same time. Another small hope there, though it is quite sad, that to get along with a woman one would look for defective units, because all the properly deployed ones are psychopathic. But that’s a small price to pay for love and peace. However, like every horror movie, there’s something ominous that didn’t die and got left behind… women who have masculine brains often have massive trauma as well, and/or other neurological sensitivities, or are schizoid, or borderlines - and you will then have to deal with previous trauma, personality disorders and so forth. But, as much as I hate personality disorders, I think that those can be worked out together provided both parties value the relationship and are willing to make sacrifices and use rationality as a tool and provided the woman in question is also very intelligent. With a properly deployed female brain on the other hand, either complete lack of agency or pathological daily assaults with absolutely no introspection to match constitute what I perceive to be an overwhelming obstacle in my case. You can’t milk a brick.
I only read the first few lines, but you're probably right.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: rrrrrr8526
Can someone provide a brief?
 
Really good thread. Brings up a lot of the things to consider when looking for a gf or really anything more than hookups
 
mirin at the high iq ngl
 
Another Day another blue pilled thread
 
Read everything
 
op you are a super retard for typing all this expecting us to read
i skimmed the entire thing. really liked your point about uncertainty and giving up. im the type of person to break down if everything doesnt go correctly. i tried and did lower my goals so i can pretend i did everything "perfectly"

brb injecting a mother with prenatal test to get a CAH girlfriend
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Hikicel69
what an extremely high IQ thread. I am in awe of your intelligence OP. too bad it's wasted on these subhumans. but then again where the fuck else jfl, at least you get spammed by dnr LOL :feelsuhh: here and not told you're an evil misogynist and banned :Comfy:
With a properly deployed female brain on the other hand, either complete lack of agency or pathological daily assaults with absolutely no introspection to match constitute what I perceive to be an overwhelming obstacle in my case. You can’t milk a brick.
brutal but the only solution I reckon. no wonder many guys myself included have a nerdy hole fetish
 
  • Woah
  • Love it
  • JFL
Reactions: Hikicel69, thecel and rrrrrr8526
NAWALT (Not All Women Are Like That) is a well known and recurring acronym in the MGTOW (Men going their own way) community. If you utter NAWALT in such circles you will often be mocked and thrown out. In reality NAWALT is a very complex subject and one on which a man’s life plan and policy must depend to some extent. These are my observations on the subject.

  1. NAWALT 101: starting from the most depressing aspect, women are intrinsically invested in concealing their nature. Manipulation is the most effective survival strategy of a party which lives at the expense of another (in particular, a sentient parasite of a sentient host). In the courts of ancient Europe, fortunes were made and lost based on fluid alliances, subterfuge, subtle insinuations, and just generally being a courtier. Machiavelli wrote extensively about this. For any manipulation to be effective, the manipulation must be covert. Governments and politicians are in this trade. They don’t tell you their policies. They appeal to your emotional buttons – babies, families, equality, kindness, and so forth. And they exploit the willful ignorance and laziness of the masses. As Ford said “if people knew how the banking system works there would be a revolution”. Unfortunately, human females are not just circumstantial manipulators, but biologically evolved manipulators. To be adept at deception, nature has made them actually unaware of what they really want, respond to and think. This is why to be ‘successful’ with women you must ignore all they say and act according to what they actually respond to. Women do not have the monopoly on adaptive, functional self-deception. Quacks too believe their own bullshit. David Icke is making millions not by lying to people but by actually believing that Saturn has a powerful influence on our DNA and that politicians are lizards. It is actually a generic human trait that people believe whatever is in their interest to convince others of. Therefore sadly, in the vast majority of cases, any statement uttered by a woman in reference to how women are, and in particular any remark which – despite tone and apparent intention - has the net effect of silencing and/or shaming a man who is trying to explain, or at least think about, or come to terms with how women are and behave – is to be interpreted as nothing more than aggression. You are being silenced for a reason. The reason is that women are invested in you not knowing about them. If you knew about them – their genes reason, and rightly so – you would never dream of having anything to do with them. So they will – often involuntarily and subconsciously - divulge fake information and generally refute any assertion that jeopardizes their position. Here, a well-intentioned person is quickly defeated in this unfair game – such a person will automatically think “I am not a woman, surely women know themselves better than I can ever know them, therefore their utterances have at least a bit of validity”. This completely ignores the ruthless reality of our evolutionary past and the fact that “if you take women advice from women you’ll never get laid” (another popular and sadly true meme, this time from the PUA community). I will talk about exceptions but any exception needs to be addressed from the initial standpoint of this fundamental awareness, that obfuscation is the norm, and honesty a very rare occurrence. So, the first layer of knowledge of NAWALT is that it is a woman’s attack on your attempt to utilize your superior rationality to make sense of them. It turns your attempts at critical thinking and generalization (intended in the positive way, as abstracting patterns from a set of observations) into something you ought to feel guilty about. If you think, you are a bad person. Therefore, please continue to be stupid and ignorant, and get played. NAWALT is also to a large extent a defense mechanism by males who just cannot accept reality and will not have their dream ripped away from them. These males are called “blue-pill” males. They will watch the same patterns repeat again and again, and still cling on to NAWALT, because, well, it is a plausible theory that cannot be disproved until you date every single woman on earth. And even then, by the time you’ve dated 4 billion women the first one may have changed. So NAWALT is often a weapon used by both men and women against men
  2. On NAWALT’s plausibility: the second way in which a well-intentioned person is quickly defeated is by naively assumes that different people must be significantly different in all respects, “because that’s just how people are”. Just like not every used car salesman is a crook, and not every doctor is rich, and not every homeless person is lazy, and not every black person sings rap and plays basketball, also women cannot possibly be all the same. Western culture shows very deep scars and guilt from prior times of extreme discrimination based on group and race, and for this reason the only position that is socially acceptable nowadays is the position that states that “no general statement can ever be made about any person”. This in a way respects what I perceive to be a fundamental right of every individual, that of being judged by their own actions. And at the same time it violates another fundamental right of every individual, that of trying to make sense of the real patterns that the world presents. My position on this is simple: generalizations are absolutely allowable as long as the person clearly considers the pros and cons of acting on them. If I visit a used car salesman, I may not care whether he is a crook or not, and I do not have the time or energy or means to find out. All I know is that I’ve been cheated before, and this new person belongs to the same group, and to the best of my knowledge it is more likely than not that he too will attempt to cheat me – furthermore I have a theoretical basis for supposing that that will be the case. Not race or shamanism, but rather the fact that our interests are clearly not aligned. I want to get the best car I can for my money, and he wants to have the largest profit possible from selling any car, and in particular cars that are hard to sell because no one wants them. I also have an evolutionary argument, not bullet proof but plausible: more deceptive car salesmen are likely to be more successful, and so the car salesman I meet today will have been the one that’s been a better deceiver in the past. Under this circumstance it is my decision and my prerogative to assume that he will be dishonest – and I will take all possible precautions to avoid being ripped off. Does it mean that I will cut his throat with a blade? No. Does it mean I’m going to wait for him at night and jump him? No. All it means is that I am going to act in my best interest by assuming dishonesty and acting according to those premises. Think about it this way. I have no power to assess whether he is honest or not. Assuming dishonesty is one of very few options available to me, and likely the least risky. The salesman on the other hand has a lot of power in trying to prove his honesty. He could give you the phone number of other dealers and ask you to shop around. He could put absolutely no pressure on you, and recommend that you think it over before making a decision. He could show you the purchase receipt for the car and prove that they are only making an honest margin on it. Is he compelled to act like that? No, for sure. But could he? Of course he could. So are you a bad person for not trusting that person when it is so much easier for him to prove his intentions than for you to discover them? I don’t think so. A woman could similarly put herself in a position from which she cannot harm you (for instance by offering to sign a prenup, if those things are even worth anything, or getting some verifiable form of contraceptive, or asking you to keep separate bank accounts). I haven’t heard of this ever happening to anyone.

  3. Mistrust is socially unacceptable: feigning trust, demanding reciprocity and then acting based on lack of trust and deceiving, is an optimal survival strategy, and this is embedded in our genes by the prevalent desire to be seen as friendly, amicable, trusting and generally socially smooth, followed by moments of greed in which one “just couldn’t help it”. Displaying lack of trust from the beginning always puts you in a vulnerable position socially speaking. It is very easy to attack a person who shows mistrust, and to throw guilt trips at them. In reality a person who has nothing to hide will assume mistrust in others, because they know that their honesty is rare. They will not resent scrutiny or suspicions, in fact they will cooperate, so that the other party can discover that this time, they got lucky. So be extremely suspicious of people who try to make you feel guilty for being suspicious. They want you vulnerable because they are predators.
  4. Generalization is also socially unacceptable: every statement is incorrect to some extent. The question is not which statement is completely true – there aren’t any. The question is, what statement is useful. A 99% statement is often very useful. Even 80% is, even 51% is. Sometimes even a 0.001% true statement is useful (“if you walk alone at night you will get attacked”). The real question is “how much do you lose if you are wrong” vs “how much do you gain if you are right”. This is simply Bayesian reasoning, i.e. being a rational agent. These estimates will vary from person to person, as will the “tolerance threshold” for how much generalization is acceptable. Someone who must work at night, say a policeman, will pay a heavy price for believing that “walking at night gets you in trouble” – he may well not be able to do his job because of that. Someone who has no reason whatsoever to walk at night and can go places throughout the day can instead very safely and gainfully hold that belief: nothing is lost, and harm, however unlikely, is prevented, with a net gain.
  5. Some traits are very accurately reproduced: although people differ vastly in behavior, there are parts of people that are very reliably reproduced by nature. Very few people have 6 fingers in one hand. Very few people have an eye on their forehead. Nature can be extremely repeatable when it wants. Very few people like to drink battery acid. You’ll probably never in your life meet one person who has 6 fingers in a hand, or a person who has an eye on their forehead, or a person who likes battery acid, even if you look for this sort of person. We all have stereoscopic vision and can walk upright. It takes a phenomenal amount of coordination to get neurons to fire in the right way to achieve a coherent system that can walk up in the morning and find a cubicle to sit in. Do not underestimate nature’s power to deploy reliably when it wants. Don’t assume that variability in human traits must exist along all dimensions and for all individuals. Most human variability is planned (i.e. the amount of variability gets selected to be optimal), and each trait is variable to a different extent. We have different races, and different blood types, but somehow we all have only one nose and in the same spot. Only a tiny bit of human variation arises from construction faults. And frankly one could survive with a nose on his forehead, whereas by botching mating strategy one’s genes are as good as dead so does that mean that it is more likely to find a person with their nose on their forehead than a woman who won’t manipulate?
  6. The traits that are reproduced with the highest fidelity in humans are those that were adaptive across all evolutionary time periods (have been with us since forever). There was never a point in time in which having 6 fingers was better, or having your stereoscopic vision messed up was better, or frying your intestines was better. Seemingly, there was never a time in which it paid off for a woman to be completely at the mercy of her more intelligent, physically stronger partner, without any sort of hook into his psychology, without ever trying to weaken his spirit and make him isolated and dependent on her. Just like there wasn’t ever a time in which it paid off for a man to like wrinkled skin. NAMALT! Not all men are like that – some actually like older women. That is a production flaw. These people are collateral damage. They exist. The fact that they exist does not make the generalization that “men like smooth skin and neoteny” wrong. It just makes it imperfectly true. How much imperfection you can tolerate depends again on how much you stand to gain and lose by giving how much credence to this statement. If you are young and deciding whether to tone and moisturize your skin, it is in your interest to believe AMALT, all men will like you more (all else being equal) if your skin looks good. If you are 70 though, and believing AMALT will lead to feeling that you cannot possibly have value for a man ever again, and the only option left to you at that point is to just accept being alone and unloved (of course assuming, which is not always the case, that that is an undesirable state to you) – then no, you should probably believe NAMALT! I know two guys who like older women. One married one. Here, believing AMALT would have a high cost. It is far better to believe NAMALT and deal with some non-zero odds of finding a companion than believing AMALT even though for the most part AMALT is correct and NAMALT is incorrect and a rare exception.
  7. Humans are terrified by loneliness, but what they are even more terrified of is uncertainty. When a person has had very traumatic experiences in some field they just “cross it off”, which is sad, because it removes power from them, and makes them a helpless victim of “initial conditions”. For instance a person may have very bad experiences with money and work. They may end up feeling worthless, and that money is impossible to have, and that rich people are just born that way, or that they are all cheaters, or something similar. This is simply a tool for self protection. Being uncertain, trying and failing, hurts your ego more than it hurts to not have that which you desire. To avoid this ultimate pain of hope and disillusionment, and facing uncertainty, people just give up what they desire. I find that this is a weak way to approach life, and although it may work in the short term to alleviate suffering, in the long term it erodes your self esteem and leaves you in a very bad condition. It is far better to stand up and fight to the last day that you live for what you wanted, and be always comforted by the fact that, if you don’t get what you needed, it won’t have been your fault. There is a sort of heroism required here, similar to when your army is losing, and instead of trying a hopeless escape, you decide to die with valor, and just run into the enemy and try to slay as many of them as you can. Not everyone can be heroic. Whether heroism works for you psychologically is something that you must choose deliberately, not based on whether a bro tells you AWALT or NAWALT.
  8. For me the jury is still out on AWALT vs NAWALT and I do feel like I’ve got a good deal of heroism in me, or perhaps it is simply that my ego just won’t die. I definitely had experiences with women who did not try to harm me or manipulate me in the past. These weren’t great relationships by any stretch of the imagination, there was a huge gap in intelligence, drive, and very low psychological compatibility. But I am still grateful for these experiences because if I had not had them, all evidence would point towards AWALT. I would be utterly convinced of AWALT with good theoretical grounding, an evolutionary argument for it and innumerable examples and reports from other men. The reason is that the jury is still out is that these were relationships in which I was not very invested. Therefore it is possible that the balance of power was skewed in my favor, and that is what kept the demons at bay. I didn’t get too attached, they never felt we were ‘a sealed deal’. One of them already had a husband, so I only covered the lover role.
  9. When one talks about “women” one is really referring to female survival strategies. It is entirely possible for a person with two X chromosomes to not follow these. If for instance, she is not attractive enough, she will be largely precluded from playing her feminine role. So you see women with very low attractiveness who are scientists, engineers, productive members of society. Scandalous! How dare I say that women with real jobs are not attractive. Yet it’s enough to walk into a club, and then into a hospital, and my statement is vindicated. Some women actually pay for the company of men who are more attractive than them. This role reversal clearly indicates that there is a power dynamic at play that transcends even gender, and is purely transactional. The party with lesser genetic value makes a financial contribution. This is also the case in many gay couples. Quite disgusting, and I’ve been in the position of being the party that gets paid, and declined firmly – but I know several of my male ‘friends’ who accepted wholeheartedly and entered an exploitative relationship with women (losing my respect in the process). Another reason a woman may not follow female survival strategies is that she has a masculine brain. INTJ/INTP types and Aspies fall in this category often. Here the distinction between NAWALT and AWALT becomes quite difficult. I don’t consider these “females brain who are not like that” but “female bodies who have very masculine brains” (and therefore aren’t like that). So AWALT and NAWALT can both be true at the same time. Another small hope there, though it is quite sad, that to get along with a woman one would look for defective units, because all the properly deployed ones are psychopathic. But that’s a small price to pay for love and peace. However, like every horror movie, there’s something ominous that didn’t die and got left behind… women who have masculine brains often have massive trauma as well, and/or other neurological sensitivities, or are schizoid, or borderlines - and you will then have to deal with previous trauma, personality disorders and so forth. But, as much as I hate personality disorders, I think that those can be worked out together provided both parties value the relationship and are willing to make sacrifices and use rationality as a tool and provided the woman in question is also very intelligent. With a properly deployed female brain on the other hand, either complete lack of agency or pathological daily assaults with absolutely no introspection to match constitute what I perceive to be an overwhelming obstacle in my case. You can’t milk a brick.
1643480287407
 

Similar threads

teefight
Replies
18
Views
370
ElTruecel
ElTruecel
lestoa
Replies
22
Views
3K
kanderior
kanderior
BucketCrab
Replies
51
Views
3K
Luffymaxxing
Luffymaxxing
LooksmaxAutist
Replies
14
Views
736
Deleted member 50251
D
fsimm
Replies
12
Views
431
melon6329
melon6329

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top