Whether it is in politics or the field of intersexual dynamics, people love to associate themselves with a chapel and draw their identity and thought through an established school of thought.

I remember when I started interviewing for companies after I graduated. Every time I went for interviews, I would wholeheartedly believe in the company, their mission, the role, and how well I would suit it to ace interviews, but also because I wanted to get employed.

It was an employer's market, so the odds were not in my favour, and I followed up many disappointments, which led me to be down on myself, but it was the default way I would function—all in or Nothing. I could not do something if I did not believe in it wholeheartedly; I had to immerse myself in the belief to be convincing.

This led my girlfriend of the time to say to me that I should not be so attached to the outcome. She was right and she was not at the same time. Right in the sense that I should not attach too much of my personal value to the outcome I got, whether negative or positive, but wrong when it came to the process of being convincing to the employer.

The reality is that the outcome would be defined mainly by the quality of the competition and by how popular the company was on the macro, and how likeable it was to the mix of interviewers on the micro.

Regardless, how is that relevant to the subject at hand?

This is how I immersed myself into the PUA, the Red Pill and the Black Pill—having spent most of the time in the first two categories.

When I first got into PUA, it was a new field where I thought everything was possible. Game was the be-all and end-all. I started getting results I would not have dreamed of, to the point where I was not questioning anything. I was getting what I was looking for, and it was great. Then, after a few bad apples and challenging conversations with other game guys or people who were not necessarily PUAs but successful with girls, I went beyond the mechanics of Game to look into the Meta of it. PUA taught me to gaslight myself to get the lay in many respects because all that mattered was the lay, but when the lay did not matter as much, I saw the limitations of the idea behind it. I remember that what would be instinctual gut reactions were framed as limiting beliefs, and disrespect as being butthurt. There was no objective reality, only subjective reality.

Although I was doing things that would get me what I was looking for, I was playing myself as a man, as I was just a robot giving the correct answers and behaviours to get the outcome I sought, thus I was bound to validate the reward/punishment system set by the woman, instead of establishing my own. Still, there was no backbone, no higher idea of oneself, no purpose, and eventually, women would find me out. This was, however, the most quantitatively successful experience when it came to fucking around.

The good stuff from the PUA I kept was the verbal (Communication and Shit-Test Handling), and psychological mastery, which are pretty valuable for the short term - What I call the micro-dynamics. I left out the underlying female placating to get the lay at all costs because it ended up making me the bitch I was looking to fuck, through the cooptation and validation of what she would respond positively to in the short run as a compass.

When I came to the Red Pill, this helped me detach from some of the PUA reflexes, which made me understand more about the concept of Frame (Long-Term) instead of Frame Control (Short-Term - PUA concept). It was necessary to have an overall macro viewpoint, complementing the micro-dynamics from the PUA, but understanding the underlying reasons. Both PUA and RP delve into the evolutionary psychology field to better appreciate the dynamics between men and women, but the RP goes beyond just getting the lay.

However, what I appreciated is that over time the difference between what some of what PUA preaching all women are great and butterflies, the RP went to the complete opposite of the spectrum (some will say it is not the RP, but whatever, the influence and the way it is conveyed is what matters, not the true textbook definition, that is something they miss while saying at the same time the medium is the message).

Another contradiction I found was how they explained and brought to the forefront hypergamy and frame, whilst at the same time coopting the model, completely negating the idea of frame in its essence.

The RP is good at understanding the bigger picture but misses the point on the micro dynamics, thinking that just having preselection and LMS will do the whole work, because the frame is codependent in a sneaky way on the women approving of it. It is also putting too much weight on Hypergamy by casting a wide net, underestimating the individual value metrics of women in their dealings with men, where PUA used to overestimate it. Regardless, from my experience and observations, if we have to make a judgment call on what is most valid between the two, the RP would be the winner, especially nowadays. However, it does not take away the individual weight of the person in his interactions when defining the outcomes he gets.

If I were to make a comparison, the Red Pill followers are adept of the homo-economicus school of thought (here more like fem -economicus). In contrast, the PUA are more part of the behavioural economists’ side.

The views of the former is that humans are perfectly rational, self-interested, and utility-maximising agents, whereas the latter believes we are not entirely rational; subject to cognitive biases, bounded rationality (limited information, time, and brain powe), and people follow heuristics which often violate economic logic (look at overtrading for example if you have been in the markets).

In a way, the RP sees the market as a Strong Form of Market Efficiency, or at best a Semi-Strong Form, where PUAs' critique is coming from the equivalent of Financial Behaviourists advocates, where markets are irrational and driven by psychology, where persistent anomalies contradict Efficient Market Hypothesis.

I found that the reality is a mix of both, like in the financial markets, overall markets are efficient, yet there are periods of inconsistency. On a long enough timeline, the price goes back to its underlying fundamental value, despite periods of irrationality. This is why 90% of fund managers underperform the benchmark, and people like Buffet are the exception that confirms the rule.

What about the empirical underpinning of adopting fully the RP, at the expense of the PUA mindset? I had a quantitatively lower amount of success, partly because when I ditched the PUA side, I lacked calibration, I took things too personally, and I was overweighting the macro at the expense of the micro. However, the upside in the process is that I started learning and understanding the principle of Frame and how to make my own. Appreciating relationship dynamics and the game women play through a different lens, and setting up the macro border that would define a good part of the analysis I make upon particular dynamics.

Yet, I detached myself from the validation of Shit-Tests as attraction metrics, both validated by the PUA and the RP. Frame is eventually something you make yourself, and it does not have to follow an A to Z path rubberstamped by either women tm or any other source. It is your singular source of truth about yourself that you live by.

The reality is that I had to keep some of the valuable tools provided to me in my learning about PUA in the process, because, like with the financial markets, the efficient market hypothesis governs a good part of the logic behind the market, but misses key aspects.

The Black Pill eventually came into the picture, it got very popular during the Covid period, and I got into it after what I thought was a revelation at the time.

My friend, who had followed most of my seductive emoluments of the past and was not really the most Game Guy there was, but had excellent numbers and Frame, said to me: "Haven't you noticed, there is a specific type you attract?". We went over quite a few numbers, and I felt at the time he had a point. I then questioned myself: "Does the game really exist? Or was I just playing on easy mode with girls who liked me?"

I decided to let my ego to the side, partly because I am lazy by nature, plus me having to do less sounded like an enticing opportunity, and also because I wanted to see for myself how legit that was, considering the growing popularity of the black pill, the dating app bonanza that happened after during and after Covid, and my Chad friends building a strong case for it.

Another occurrence was that I was going out with a couple of Chad friends, and they had nothing to do, right in front of me. But the apps, and the fact I had to learn PUA, told me already that I was not Chad (boohoo).

Well, my numbers decreased dramatically, ballpark 80% drop. My friend joked with me that it was due to my "shitty personality"; this was rich coming from him, but it became an inside joke since.

I started using Game and got back to usual numbers, not as good as during my PUA times, but better than when I was RP only focused. Yet the central teaching that the Black Pill has got correct is the Halo Effect, and the positive impact it has is showing the importance of looks, which PUAs and even the RP have regularly understated. Yet the black pill won't save you in a relationship.

Other genetic aspects will matter more than you think, and those are beyond your control. I made a much longer post on the black pill with what to take and what to keep on my S*bS**ck.

In the end, this complete immersion behaviour is what drove my actions, whether in interviews or by going into the mindset of each of these schools. It is what really helped dig into what empirical validity it held in my own life, putting ego aside, and really sticking to the best possible truth, not there to help me cope, but there to help me better understand.

I appreciate that it won't change the minds of others; some are using the teachings for learned helplessness in their failures or ego validation in their successes, but if there is one lesson I learned over those 15 years:

It is not personal, but it is to some extent.

‍