Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
How Happiness Works Over Time
-By Caleb Jones
If we rank happiness on a scale from 1 to 10, then measure it over time, how does it fluctuate? How do our actions and attitudes modify this fluctuation? Today we'll examine this using some fun nerdy visuals.
Let's take the typical man first. Since most men are beta males, how does a beta male's happiness fluctuate over time? Imagine a beta; the typical skinnyfat guy who works at some corporate job he doesn't really like, married to the typical average-looking, nonsexual chubby woman, and who has a few kids. His happiness looks like this: (click graphs to zoom)
The typical beta's happiness is always around "okay," floating in the range of 4-6 on our 1 to 10 scale. He's not necessarily miserable, but he's not happy. His life is calm, predictable, and socially acceptable, but also boring and limited. He can't do what he wants, he doesn't have a lot of sex, and excitement is rare. He's doomed to live a life of mediocrity and moderate happiness for the rest of his life unless he makes some radical changes.
Now let's look at how happy the typical woman is:
As you can see, most women are basket cases of exciting highs and dramatic lows. Sometimes she's happy as can be, almost ecstatic. Other times she's depressed, angry, frustrated, or in the middle of drama with her husband, boyfriend, ex, boss, co-worker, girlfriend, sister, mom, dad, or whomever.
Happy or angry, she's never at that state for very long. Within a few hours or days, she's back to the other extreme again. As I describe in the book, this is biological and secretly how she likes it. Being happy all the time would actually be a little boring to her. Unlike most men, she needs a wide array of both positive and negative feelings in order to feel "alive." She likes being happy, but she also likes drama and problems too, at least to some degree, even if she doesn't admit it.
Now let's look at the Alpha Males. Since the vast majority of Alpha Males are Alpha 1.0s, we'll examine the Alpha Male 1.0 first.
As you can see, unlike the beta, the Alpha Male 1.0 is able to experience great happiness, fulfillment, and excitement in his life. He's free to live his live as he chooses most of the time (though not always), and he's competent enough to get results in the areas important to him.
On the flip side, happiness is not his primary objective in life. He likes happiness of course, but his primary goal is to control and to be heard. Because of this, he semi-regularly experiences problems like drama, anger, loneliness, and/or conflict.
He gets a new (monogamous) girlfriend. He's super happy. Then he bosses her around, she resists, and they argue. Now he's unhappy. They have makeup-sex and everything is great again. Then she dumps him. He's very unhappy. Then he uses his PUA skills and has sex with a bunch of new girls. He's happy. Then he reflects at how meaningless it all is. Now he's unhappy. Then he fucks more girls. Happy again. Then he gets busy with work and goes through a long dry spell where he doesn't have sex for five months. Unhappy again. Then he gets a new girlfriend. Happy again. Then he orders her around and has drama. Unhappy again.
On and on this pattern goes for the rest of his life. Very happy often, also regularly unhappy. Unlike a woman, the Alpha 1.0 doesn't like being unhappy, but he considers regular unhappiness as "worth the price" of ensuring people follow his program and making sure they listen to and "respect" him.
Now let's look at what this blog and my book is all about, the Alpha Male 2.0's usual happiness pattern:
The Alpha 2.0 has structured his attitude and his life to achieve long-term, consistent happiness. His happiness level fluctuates between 8 and 10, just about all the time. The only time his happiness drops below an 8 is when something very unusual happens outside of his control, like one of his parents dies. Thankfully, these kinds of events are very rare.
He makes a decently high income doing something he likes, and aligned with his Mission, without working long hours. He never does monogamy yet is decent at long-term relationships, so he constantly has all the sex he wants, with the emotional connected experience of a relationship (if he wants it), but without most of the PUA/pickup work. Nor does he ever have dry spells (again, unless he choses to have one).
Unlike his Alpha 1.0 brother, he doesn't tell women what to do, nor does he care, so he has virtually zero drama or conflict in his personal life. Instead, he focuses on his Mission which creates even more happiness. Unlike his beta brother, he's 100% free to do whatever the hell he wants, at all times.
Because his lifestyle looks odd to most of society, he doesn't quite get the accolades or respect from friends and family that the beta gets and that the Alpha 1.0 sometimes gets. However, the Alpha 2.0 is outcome independent, so he doesn't care. He's too busy being happy while smiling at the unhappy world around him.
Now let's switch gears and look at how some of your life decisions affect your long-term happiness patterns. Usually, doing what society says is appropriate actually makes you less happy. The tricky part is that this unhappiness often slowly sneaks up on you. Let's look at a few examples. Remember to click the graphs if you can't read them.
I'll start with an easy one: getting a girlfriend. Everyone wants a girlfriend, right? I'm talking here about the standard monogamous type, not an OLTR. How does your happiness look when you get a girlfriend over time?
When you get a girlfriend, this is what happens almost every time:
During the first few months of NRE, your happiness skyrockets to 10 and you think you've hit the jackpot. Over time, the two of you become more "comfortable" with each other and that's when the boredom and drama start kicking in. For a while you're still happier than when you were single, but your average levels of happiness continue to decline ever so slowly.
Eventually, you're less happy in your relationship than you were outside of a relationship. Then she puts the final bullet in your head and dumps you, and you feel like absolute shit. Eventually, your happiness begins the slow climb back up to where it was when you were single. It's very predictable, and happens in the vast majority of standard boyfriend / girlfriend relationships. Serial monogamists thrive on these up-and-down highs and lows.
Let's kick it up a notch and look at what happens to your happiness when you actually get married:
As I've explained many times, and as all the stats and your own anecdotal experience shows, here's what usually happens when you get married. During the engagement, wedding planning, wedding, reception, honeymoon, moving in together, and perhaps that first baby, you're on cloud nine and you're the Happiest You've Ever Been™. But then, slowly but surely, the drama increases, the sex decreases, you start remembering all the stuff you want to do with your life that you're not allowed to do anymore because your Wife Won't Let You™. Then you hit the three year mark and your wife almost completely shuts off the sex because she's sexually bored with you now. Say hello to a new, permanent, lower level of average happiness, below your average level of happiness when you were unmarried.
Since we're talking about marriage, it's only fair we talk about your happiness during a divorce too:
When you get divorced it's pretty bad, and your happiness level is in the toilet for a while. You have to battle your wife and the law, both of which are allied against you. However, as I've discussed before, once most of the crap is taken care of (moving out, the ex-wife calms down, the legal divorce is over or at least on its way, visitation with kids is established, etc), then you suddenly feel a rush of happiness and euphoria (10 on our scale) unlike anything you've probably felt before. You'll be so happy you won't belive it. Over time, your natural habits will take over and you'll descend back to a standard level of happiness, perhaps a 6 or a 7, which is the same level you had before you got married, but well above what you had when you were married.
Here's another fun one I've talked about before as well. Kids! Just about everyone wants kids someday, right? Well, let's see what happens to your happiness when you do this:
When a person goes from childless to parent, average happiness goes down, and stays down, until 20 years later when the kid grows up and moves out of the house. Every study done on this topic shows the same pattern, even though because of Societal Programming most people are too horrified to admit this. They equate admitting unhappiness as a parent to not loving their children, which of course have nothing to do with each other. Scott Adams just made an interesting blog post about this right here.
The reason people say they're "so happy" or "happier" being a parent is because when they're saying this, they're thinking about the isolated moments of joy that occur when you have kids, particularly when they're very little and still cute. Yes, that little two-year old bastard has been keeping you up for the last four days, creating constant messes you have to clean up, and stressing the fuck out of you, but then one day in the kitchen he looks up at you with his big brown eyes and his fat little face with mashed potatoes all over his mouth, looks you right in the eye, and says in his cute little voice, "I wub bu daddy." Then you melt, and your happiness goes to 10 for about three minutes before it plunges back to it's usual parenting 4. When people ask you how happy you are to be a dad, you remember that little moment, not the pain prior that lasted four entire days.
I hope these visuals have been helpful. Personal happiness is the most important topic there is. If there are any other ways I can educate on this, please let me know.
Note: I’m offering a $500 cash prize (and other cool stuff) for the best success story using any of the concepts I talk about. Go here for contest details. The deadline is Feb 22nd!
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
BlindIo 2016-02-15 05:37:49
My first and only thought at seeing the beta male graph was "this is not okay". Had shivers going down my spine and everything. It's all or nothing for me from here on.
O 2016-02-15 07:29:38
This is one of my favorite Blackdragon articles. I've been a follower for a while. Your site is one of the handful of sites I visit on a daily basis. I'm interested in the phone coaching. Please provide details. Thanks!
SadiesBlonde 2016-02-15 08:43:41
I like the nerdy visuals but a couple of points. Martin Seligman who followed Maslow is considered the preeminent expert on positive psychology. His theories would contradict some of your hypothesis on consistent long-term happiness. The one that comes to mind is the selfishness of the alpha 2.0 life choices. Positive psychology is divided into individualistic and altruistic spheres: the pursuits for self-gain and the selfless giving of yourself to others such as sacrifice for the greater good. When you speak about children and marriage you downplay the fact how it benefits society as a whole to have cohesive family units long-term. Seligman wrote that the highest level of happiness can be achieved by having a "meaningful life", a life with a purpose. In my argument I would say that consistent long-term happiness reeks of a notion of some artificial Utopia. Without sadness one would not feel the full extent of sheer happiness, without darkness there's no light. Surely, everyone wants to be "happy"? But what does that really mean? Engineering your life for selfish pleasure and pursuits?
K 2016-02-15 09:56:05
SadiesBlonde, I'm afraid that while happiness factors could be categorised, their contribution weight to one’s happiness is individual. Unfortunately for the society as a whole (and BD has clearly stated many times that he couldn’t care less about it 🙂 ), there will always be a certain number of individuals whose happiness is dependent predominantly on their physical pleasure (sex being just one of the many parts of the equation) and much less on taking account of other people’s feelings and well-being. Look at his concept of soft next, for example… You’re unhappy? You want to discuss something / have strong feelings for me and can’t present it to me in a way that I consider mature or acceptable? I will stop talking to you for days… while I still respect you and care about you, of course. Oh and btw even if I like you a lot, I can’t see you more than once per week, me and my mission are too important for that. You see how ridiculous this is? He doesn’t. And he’s happy, I fully trust him on that – as well as that pursuing his lifestyle, even at the expense of others, can make a lot of people happy, men and women alike. Regardless of what you and I may think about it.
Blackdragon 2016-02-15 10:17:06
My first and only thought at seeing the beta male graph was “this is not okay”.Way back when I actually was a beta, that was my exact thought too. 🙂
I’m interested in the phone coaching. Please provide details.Many options, based on your budget and needs: http://www.consultwithbd.com/ http://www.coachingwithbd.com/ http://www.sovereignmaninnercircle.com/join.html http://www.rapidbusinesscoaching.com/
Blackdragon 2016-02-15 10:39:26
Oh boy! Here come the women! Let's dance, ladies.
When you speak about children and marriage you downplay the fact how it benefits society as a whole to have cohesive family units long-term.I don't downplay it, rather I don't even mention it, because it's not relevant to my point. You can suffer in all kinds of ways that benefit society. These ways won't make you happy, but will good for society. Whether or not that's a valid sacrifice to make is a completely different topic and conversation, and one I've had on this blog many times. My conversation here is that marriage and kids will make you less happy over time, because they will, so if these are things you want, you need to go into these decisions with both eyes open so you're not surprised later. Societal Programming doesn't teach any of this stuff, therefore people are constantly surprised when they do these things, which I don't think is fair. And as I must always repeat, the vast, VAST majority of people reading these words will get married someday and/or will have kids at some point regardless of what I say on the subject, even if they logically agree with my arguments at the moment. My posts will not alter or hinder society in any way, trust me.
Without sadness one would not feel the full extent of sheer happiness, without darkness there’s no light.You're demonstrating exactly the female view on this. Good is good, bad is also good. If all you have is good, that's bad. Because darkness and light and stuff. I hope all of you male readers are paying close attention, because Sadiesblonde is demonstrating exactly how women think regarding the topic of your happiness. You also need to re-read chapter two of my book, where I solidly and completely refute your exact argument in great detail.
Surely, everyone wants to be “happy”? But what does that really mean?The definition of happiness warrants its own blog post. It's been on my topics list for a while, and I will be writing it soon.
Look at his concept of soft next, for example… You’re unhappy? You want to discuss something / have strong feelings for me and can’t present it to me in a way that I consider mature or acceptable? I will stop talking to you for daysCorrect, and great summary. All you have to do when you have a problem in the relationship is to bring it to my attention without screaming at me or insulting me. If you don't have the ability to do something that simple, you need to go abuse someone else. I don't do abuse (though there are many other men who do).
Oh and btw even if I like you a lot, I can’t see you more than once per week, me and my mission are too important for that. You see how ridiculous this is? He doesn’t.It would be ridiculous if that were the reason for the once a week rule, but it isn't. (Though true, the extra time to work on one's Mission is a nice side-benefit.) The reason for that rule is if I start seeing you more than once a week in an MLTR or FB relationship, you'll start giving me more drama, rules, and betaization because it will start to feel to you like I'm you're boyfriend when I'm not. That's called incongruence, which isn't fair to you, and drama, which isn't fair to me. Once I know you can handle my lifestyle, and once you actually are my "girlfriend," then you can see me all you like and the once-a-week rule no longer applies. It's called OLTR. We can even live together! Hell, we can even have kids! The once-a-week rule only applies to FBs and MLTRs. That above argument probably doesn't make sense to you, because since you're a woman like Sadiesblonde, you're under the impression that the pain and unhappiness we would both feel if I saw you more than once a week as an FB or MLTR (drama and betaization) is somehow good. Because darkness and light. And stuff.
Parade 2016-02-15 11:29:25
I kind of agree with the darkness and light argument, and I'm not a woman and I don't like unhappiness. However, while I kind of agree, most people have already experienced enough unhappiness to know what it is; Parent died, a breakup, didn't get your way as a kid, whatever. You don't need to be continually beat over the head with it in a relationship, or reminded of it extensively. I don't think the people in Alaska who have 24 hours of sun for months forget what night looks like.
Blackdragon 2016-02-15 11:41:27
most people have already experienced enough unhappiness to know what it isBingo. The counter-argument summarized. By age 25 the average person has experienced every negative emotion there is, many times over. There's no need to repeat them to remind yourself once you're over that age. Once you hit age 25 (or so), you have "permission" to never be unhappy again if that's what you want.
SadiesBlonde 2016-02-15 11:58:27
Life doesn't work that way guys!! You can't just selectively pick and choose the emotions you experience on a day-to-day basis this is not the "truman show".
Readytoleaveguy 2016-02-15 12:22:27
This article and website are fantastic. I just bought BD's 2.0 book and I'd recommend it to anyone who cringes at the comments from family members and friends to "man up", "step up", "do the right thing" et al.
BlindIo 2016-02-15 12:32:52
Actually yes you can. Emotions are a result of external factors, the environment you live in and the way you live. Negative emotions are natures way of telling us that something is not right and that it needs to be fixed. Likewise, positive emotions are natures way of telling us that everything is going great and to keep doing it. Which makes me wonder if it is possible to live in a way that provides a more or less constant endorphin and serotonin rush. Something to look into. The problem for women is that you are not happy unless you are unhappy part of the time. Men don't work like that.
hey hey 2016-02-15 12:37:58
Women are funny. One of the woman that opened my eyes(and the only one I dislike) told me when she kicked my ass out "It is not all about happiness" (she meant the relationship was all fun and joy, no drama until the very end. She also said the if couples don't argue and fight then there is no true connection. I always thought fighting and arguing, instead of discussion, for small things with a woman was stupid and immature. But BD is very right about this. They will always initiate fighting just out of the blue because they like being miserable at moments and because of that they will unleash that misery onto the guy. Why should you frustrate the guy if you love him? Why should you try to make your loved one miserable in moments when he is mostly happy just because you had a miserable day at work? Is this the maturity you are talking about Blondie? Also about the Alpha 2.0 and the selfishness. An Alpha 2.0 can give back to society in ways you can't imagines. For example he can go to Africa find couple of children give them toys and food. The "picture" of the joy in their faces will be instilled in his mind forever. That's 10x better than your bs unselfish acts that everyone does without effort. Children? Yeah have children because planet Earth is not already choked by overpopulation. Have children when you are less than ready growing them up in correct ways(that's also why most people today are miserable because of immature parents). Really unselfish acts. Now about the happiness. A man is consistently happy when: He has an ultimate mission(with which he gives back to society in far better ways from a man who is clueless about his life). At the same time he has "relationships" with women(and not just A woman) that last many years. At the same time working towards his personal goals consistently. At the same time he makes money and he is free to do whatever the hell he wants. And for some men have some children when they achieved most of the above(and the only reason is because they want to be proud for extending the family tree). The above do not make a woman consistently happy. In fact a woman does not have anything that makes her consistently happy. Look at Jolie for example: She has one of most handsome guys by her side, one of the coolest and clever guys around, she adopted many poor kids, she is free and has plenty of money. Yet she is most of the time unhappy(and her anorexia is not a sickness, it is a result of her troubled mind).
Carmichael Red 2016-02-15 13:32:52
I don't think a man on a mission (detached from reward) is emphasized enough in popular culture. The best book I read on the subject is The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. Especially in the rise of female-centric media (ads, tv, film, etc). Even the main hero is going through shit for the love and acceptance of the virgin-pure woman. I walk into my guy friends (who have a girlfriend) homes and there is no workspace or office! In an instant I can listen to a guy's mission or purpose in life and pinpoint the attractiveness of his GF. As for long-term happiness. When I was working on $155M movies I've slept in coffee shops, showered with heroin addicts, stole from shops to eat and had every chance to feel sorry myself. The test of True Self Control is not allowing circumstances dictate your emotions. Women love to test a man's repose. BD is on point when a woman gets abusive and not aiding in the happiness and ambition of her man. Which is reciprocal to her happiness. It's too bad that backboneless dudes actually break and buy her shit to mend the fence after a "fight." A Guy can destroy a woman in an argument. Don't Argue, Ignore and Be Happy with the pains and gains of your own individual growth. Simple.
JRM 2016-02-15 18:01:36
Life doesn’t work that way guys!! You can’t just selectively pick and choose the emotions you experience on a day-to-day basis this is not the “truman show”.YES YOU CAN. You choose how events/issues affect your emotions and how to deal with them. Most men DON'T need negative emotions to "feel alive" like women. But, you'll never be able to understand this...why don't you go make yourself useful and cook us all a pie? I'm sure you should be trolling some site that's applauding SI's choice to put a fatty on its cover or something.
Anthony 2016-02-15 18:28:08
BD, That female chart is downright scary. It looks like an economy experiencing hyperinflation and deflation all at the same damn time!!
SadiesBlonde 2016-02-15 18:57:34
@JRM Well, you bake not cook a pie. And yes, I support SI putting a plus size model on the cover for many reasons. Imagine that the existence of every woman is not meant solely to be pleasing to your penis? That there's more value to a woman than being attractive to men? That the experience of being a woman shouldn't be limited to being validated only if she is thin and beautiful? Diversifying the concept of beauty in the media is democratic and timely. The fact that you have a problem with a "fatty" being on the cover speaks more to your limitations not good judgement. But I mean cheap shots are entertaining.
Ja_ 2016-02-15 20:24:17
Alpha 2.0 is like reading about the Nordic ideal.
BlindIo 2016-02-15 21:10:06
SB, the western economies are going to financially collapse soon, probably cirka 2020. When that happens women will once again need men merely to survive, and moreover, the kind of men who read this site. Better start losing those pounds.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-02-16 01:48:53
Life doesn’t work that way guys!! You can’t just selectively pick and choose the emotions you experience on a day-to-day basisExcuse me, but I decide how my life works, not you. Will you please stop collectivizing "life?" Why do you women have to communize everything. If your life doesn't work that way, then you're a loser. But my life certainly does.
I support SI putting a plus size model on the cover for many reasons.Plus size? LOL! You mean, fat pig! When you trespass into our red pill space, at least have the decency to use honest language instead of your politically correct horseshit euphemisms.
Imagine that the existence of every woman is not meant solely to be pleasing to your penis?So if I insist that she not be a fat pig, it's all about my penis? I'm sure you, as a woman, would have no objection to putting male fat pigs on the cover of magazines.
That there’s more value to a woman than being attractive to men?How about insisting on some self-respect and physical health? You think glamorizing a disgusting obese whale is "taking a stand against men?" No honey, it's showing how little respect for their own bodies and health women have. It's showing that you are willing to be the most worthless loser just to spite an imaginary patriarchy. In short, it's showing you as childish, petty, and not worthy of any respect. My penis has nothing to do with it.
That the experience of being a woman shouldn’t be limited to being validated only if she is thin and beautiful?Now you're talking like a feminist parrot, which is ironic considering how much of a gold digging parasitic whore you revealed yourself to be on the "Girls with Game" blog. How about being validated for caring about her health and how she looks. Men aren't forgiven for being fat pigs either, nor should they.
Diversifying the concept of beauty in the media is democratic and timely.You can't "diversify" something as objective as beauty. Beauty is symmetry. Beauty is geometry. It's math. Shove all the obese female garbage down our throats - you still can't "program us" out of our "beauty standards," because they are not made by society (feminist ramblings notwithstanding). They are made by nature and geometric truth.
The fact that you have a problem with a “fatty” being on the cover speaks more to your limitations not good judgement.And the fact that you see men as walking ATM machines (as you've demonstrated on the girls blog) speaks to your own intellectual, mental, and moral inferiority in contrast to even the lowest male janitor. That's why you must parasite off of the hard work of your male superiors, because deep down, you're just a loser who can't make a life for herself or create anything, so the only thing you choose to be is a one trick pony gold digging whore!
POB 2016-02-16 03:55:02
It's so funny. Every time a guy says "women love emotional ups and downs" some random chick screams from the last row "no we don't you misogynistic prick!!!" and start a rant that validates the point.
Anon. 2016-02-16 04:49:26
And yes, I support SI putting a plus size model on the cover for many reasons. Imagine that the existence of every woman is not meant solely to be pleasing to your penis? That there’s more value to a woman than being attractive to men?Sorry, I don’t possess a copy of the magazine in question, so please clarify. What exactly is on the cover, if not the typical photo emphasizing attractiveness, shot at the most flattering angle possible? A list of academic achievements of said plus size model? An in-depth description of her character? Or by any chance, is there a video accompanying that photoshoot, maybe that’s where she has a chance to speak at length about her worldview?
ThomasNordic 2016-02-16 06:02:59
JOB, maybe you should yourself stop collectivizing. I am certainly not part of "our red pill" space as you seem to consider this to be, nor do I feel the need to go on about women being fat pigs etc. It seems ridiculously aggressive for no reason. I quite enjoy browsing this site and agree with much of it but I dont consider it red pill or manosphere at all, at least not in the traditional sense. Who needs to insult women? Who wants to live in the 1950s? Who actively hopes for an economic collapse that would make women depend on men again, as another poster wrote? Men have far more freedom in the modern world.
BlindIo 2016-02-16 06:15:56
Hope has nothing to do with it. The economy is going to collapse, and likely soon. I'm posting about it anywhere people are likely to listen in order that as many people as possible can prepare for it ahead of time, not for any personal benefit. If you want a decent shot at getting through it without going broke then don't keep more money in the bank than necessary (they can legally take it now) and have some assets that won't get inflated away such as gold, silver, bitcoins, real estate, food, ammo etc.
Tin Man 2016-02-16 06:29:55
The comments are golden! My two cents, since we are having a lively discussion here: (1) Men don't "need" emotional highs and lows for survival. Evo-psych ... it was in our best interest to be both steady and emotionless - for most of the day - as hunters or gatherers - our attention had to be focused on either finding our next kill or staying tuned into danger. That can't happen if your emotions get the better of you. (2) The emotions we are most comfortable with are both extreme and short lived. Once again, we are built to have "bursts" of emotions, followed by longer periods of "steady" emotions. The burst could be anything from anger/aggression in defending ourselves (or those in our collective group) or the ecstasy we feel after the kill or during sex. (3) When in a long term relationship (and as BD has stated, monogamous) we are bombarded by emotional states all the time (i.e. our significant other). To men, that creates an uncomfortable feeling - like fingernails on a chalkboard - at first, we can deal with it, once again, in the beginning we get that in small bursts (primarily because the woman is trying her best to "bond" with us), over time, it become more frequent and louder. We can't deal with that long term, but because we are also loyal and committed, we put up with it - especially in today's society, because "that's the way it is". (4) Last, the reason we feel both the loneliness (sadness) and then the euphoric feeling after the breakup is because of this simple fact - we all become acclimated to our environment. Men "accept" their lot in life much easier than women do - thus, when the environment changes, we have to re-acclimate to the new one. That takes time. But, once we do, and it is back to one where we have the ability to live with those short intense bursts - we are much happier, thus, euphoria because we are back to a more natural place for our lower (and higher) brains. At least that's my thought after reading this (awesome) article. I think another great article is the cycle between Alpha 1.0 to Beta - because I believe there is a path that most men take, based upon my limited knowledge. Some of that is based upon observations of my own life. My journey through our little corner of the internet has been more centered on answering the question "why are women like that" more than "I want to learn how to get laid" - to me, it became a problem to solve. BUT, like many, it's easy to put on those glasses, see the world for what it is ... work on being your own man, find a "woman that not like the others", take the glasses off and start the cycle again. So, not a how to per se, just a bit of your observations on the cycle, and then possibly how/when to break out of it.
ThomasNordic 2016-02-16 06:53:42
Blindlo, you want me to buy food and ammunition because you expect apparently the worst economic collapse in history? Should I buy weaponry too then? Sorry, I am heavy in stocks and see no reason to change that.
BlindIo 2016-02-16 07:25:02
I don't want any specific person to do anything. Just informing for those who find use in it.
Tin Man 2016-02-16 07:44:51
@ThomasNordic I couldn't agree more with your stance on the subject. I hope there is no collapse and if there is, other than the natural "survival sense" we all have, do you really want to live in that world? Most of us are ill prepared for such a thing. I also don't give a crap about going back tot he 1950's (or any other age) ... first, we can't unspill the milk and second, at the present time (in our society and right now), there is more opportunity to live a life of your choosing than at anytime in history. Men fight against that, when they should be embracing it. And last - there are as many flaws with TRP/MS as there are with any "theory" - and yes, that includes BD's advice. We will travel many roads, live many lives, wear many faces - my goal is to be happy with all those. In my mind, the single biggest "secret" that BD talks about is TRUE outcome independence. That's the one I'm working on right now.
Tin Man 2016-02-16 07:52:09
@SadiesBlonde Last comment, then back to work ... VALUE is very subjective, and very personal. From an evolutionary perspective (which represents about 99% of our time on this planet, not the last 50 or 100 years) - the value of both sexes was in our genetics. The ability to bear children (preferably strong ones) was the value of a woman; the ability to provide and protect was the value of a man. We still have that lower (lizard) brain. It still controls us. We are the sum of all our years - and evolution doesn't move quite as fast as technology. Just because we don't want something to be true, doesn't mean it's not.
Bobby 2016-02-16 08:11:39
"You can't appreciate the light, unless you experience darkness too" - This is how women justify creating drama; and it's complete bullshit. This idea does not apply to men in any way whatsoever.
CrabRangoon 2016-02-16 08:12:53
@Tin Man "In my mind, the single biggest “secret” that BD talks about is TRUE outcome independence." Couldn't agree more-it's one of the biggest takeaways from BD's writing and others like Harry Browne. It's incredibly liberating and does provide for more long term consistent happiness. You will still have some occasional downs, like one of your fav girls from the rotation bailing on you to go find her Disney guy BUT you will recover very quickly and be fine knowing you have other things going in your life...other girls, your mission, passions, etc... Compare that to the guy who puts it all on one girl, one job, or whatever it might be. If he loses that one thing, he's devastated for months, possibly years. So yes, outcome independence is key for the Alpha 2.0 male. I preach it to all my guy friends. We don't need the ups and downs women require-it's not how we're wired. I know I'll experience sadness, anger and other negative emotions again but I'll do my damnedest to avoid them as much as possible. I don't need any more shitty times to appreciate the good right now.
Blackdragon 2016-02-16 08:24:24
whore!Jack, you know the rules here, and you know how much I hate playing moderator. Personal attacks are not allowed here against other commenters, even irrational women who are clearly wrong. I and other posters took her down without resorting to name-calling. Learn from them, control your emotions, and keep the discourse here at an adult level. Thanks.
I think another great article is the cycle between Alpha 1.0 to Beta – because I believe there is a path that most men take, based upon my limited knowledge. Some of that is based upon observations of my own life.Most make take one of two paths in life: 1. Beta to worse beta. 2. Alpha 1.0 to beta. Both are bad, though the Alpha to beta path is more tragic. Beta or Alpha 1.0 to 2.0 isn't so much as a path as a decision.
“You can’t appreciate the light, unless you experience darkness too” – This is how women justify creating drama; and it’s complete bullshit.Once you've experienced pain, and everyone already has, that's correct.
This idea does not apply to men in any way whatsoever.To be fair, many men use this argument as well. When you start talking about long-term consistent happiness, lots of people start getting uncomfortable, but yes, the majority of these people are females. The key point is if I started a business for women about "How to never be unhappy ever again," I'd go bankrupt. Women aren't interested. But if I started the same business for men, I'd sell thousands of books and make a lot of money (and I did). Men need to understand that when they're with a woman in any long-term capacity, her objectives for long-term happiness are completely different than his. He needs to make accommodations for this regardless of how amazing he thinks she is or how much in love they are.
Tin Man 2016-02-16 09:39:32
And since @SadiesBlonde brought up the word VALUE and @Jack Outside the Box decided to step it down a notch or two ... thought I'd add something else ... There is absolutely no VALUE to a man in being angry (pissed of, mad as hell, seeing red, etc and so on), at least not in staying in that state. It is absolutely a FIGHT reaction - and though it may may be necessary on a periodic basis to be "in" that state of mind, it is absolutely counter-productive to "stay" there. Your brain (which is your greatest weapon) does not work well all hyped up on adrenaline - it serves one purpose - for you to act bodily (fight or run) and to act now, this very second. So few situations in our lives today require us to act that quickly - and even fewer involve women. Don't name call - not worth the effort. Don't engage in an argument - not worth the aggravation. Lastly, don't let anything said get you too worked up, from anyone - you give them your power, keep it for yourself. We're human. We have emotions. But take it from an older guy, put yourself back into the center of your life - once you do, and can keep your footing - you will find the little things, outside of what you want, really don't matter. And if they don't matter, then they have limited or no value to you. BTW, that will eliminate about 90% of what the rest of world "thinks" is important.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-02-16 14:17:29
JOB, maybe you should yourself stop collectivizing. I am certainly not part of “our red pill” space as you seem to consider this to be, nor do I feel the need to go on about women being fat pigs etc. It seems ridiculously aggressive for no reason.This is most definitely a red pill space. Also, I hate euphemisms. If a woman on a magazine cover is a fat pig, I will call her a fat pig, not "plus size," lol. It's about raw honesty and an end to political correctness.
I quite enjoy browsing this site and agree with much of it but I dont consider it red pill or manosphere at all, at least not in the traditional sense. Who needs to insult women?I'm insulting her as a person. The fact that she has a vagina has zero to do with this! By the way, did you read her article on BD's "Girls with Game" blog? Look it up. It's entitled "Millionaire Hunting." Why BD would even allow such a blue pill woman to write articles on a blog he owns boggles the mind. Read that article over there and try not to get "aggressive."
Who wants to live in the 1950s?She does. Again, read her article there. If you think red pillers are a bunch of Disney traditional conservatives who want to undo the 1960s sexual revolution, then you and I have a radically different definition of red pill. Dude, have you read my other comments on this blog? I am as anti-1950s as you can possibly get. I hate purity fetishes and virgin worship. I have ripped apart traditional conservatives and their slut shaming ways more times than I can count. I realize that certain tradcons have infiltrated the red pill community, but I see them as blue pill Disney guys, not truly red pill. The red pill, as it pertains to sex, is about sex-positivity and open mindedness. The Red Pill stands against the 1950s and the tradcons who call themselves red pill while wanting to go back to Guy Disney. I'll go so far as to say that this is probably the most red pill blog on the Internet.
Who actively hopes for an economic collapse that would make women depend on men again, as another poster wrote?Certainly not me. The last thing I want is for women to become parasites on us. Yuck! That's another reason I was aggressive towards her. Read her "Millionaire Hunting" article at the Girls with Game blog and weep. She goes by the name "Greygirl" there.
Men have far more freedom in the modern world.Correct and I want to keep it that way, hence my ripping her apart.
Diggy 2016-02-16 16:41:25
That female chart is downright scary. It looks like an economy experiencing hyperinflation and deflation all at the same damn time!!The funny thing is that I saw that graph and immediately agreed with its premise. I then imagined it like a fractal where every time I would zoom in I would see another identical graph with the same ups and down but just a narrower time frame... Then imagined zooming in further to hours... still all over the place. Zoomed in further... hell, any given moment is an unimaginable nightmare to a man. There were these weird blimps however that seemed to revolve some type of purchasing footwear that sent happiness thru the roof. That seemed to last a few hours.
ThomasNordic 2016-02-17 05:44:57
JOB From my little experience of red pill sites, yes they seem like traditionalists, raging against women, wanting to move back in time. They consider where I am from (Denmark) wildly feminist, even though it is not feminist at all unless thats defined by women not depending on men. I cant see any logic. Like them you also seem very angry and even want to promote that anger. Why? Havent you already lost if you get angry? I read the piece you mentioned and cant see the problem? She wants millionaires, so what? You consider yourself heroically un-pc by hurling mere insults at women but she cant have a preference? It doesnt make sense. Its generally all this anger and negativity, I dont like. As if women are an enemy that needs to know their place. Why else would you need all the abuse? It seems poor attitude to me, hardly in tune with this site or indeed likely to promote happiness.
OnAMission 2016-02-17 13:29:11
Nordic - I agree. The point of this blog is happiness and loving women. If JOB doesn't 'love' a particular woman > next. He needs to 'next' Sadie, not 'Set Her Straight'. He seems VERY Alpha 1.0 to me. Too much anger going around there. There must be a story behind that... Chill.
OnAMission 2016-02-17 14:11:26
I am also amazed that I didn't see Sadie's point before about not thinking that long term happiness is achievable/desirable. It makes sense now why my women always had to find something to complain about. There was me trying to fix their problems. They actually dont want to be happy for too long as they feel guilty and selfish. This pattern is their normal. I may make a wallpaper of those charts... Keep the good blogs coming BD. Thanks very very much. I have bought loads of stuff from you. All worth it. And thanks Sadie for the female input. I think I will have to start reading the Girls With Game site Astounding!
BlindIo 2016-02-17 20:13:41
The question is why do women apparently have a need to be miserable at regular intervals. One theory, and not yet properly thought through, is that life used to be a constant fight for survival. There was always the risk of wild animals or enemy tribes or losing half your kids to disease. Maybe death and disaster was so common that it has become a biological part of women to expect it, and when it doesn't manifest for long enough they manufacture drama in order to feel those bad emotions. This sounds completely retarded to me, yet it is the best I can come up with. Anyone got thoughts on this?
hey hey 2016-02-18 03:38:03
My theory is that it has something to do with their constant struggle..ie period, pregnancy, menopause etc. These things do not let them stay relaxed and comfortable and when they see constant happiness around them it strikes a nerve. Even if they structure their life to be happy eventually their biology overcomes their logic.
Anon. 2016-02-18 05:48:06
Well, it’s not like the majority of men is consistently happy. Maybe a woman with goals similar to BD’s would find men in her life a great source of drama. Also the issue of control. If a woman desires the man to be in control, then she has to find one that would do everything just right, because by definition she can’t “fix” someone she doesn’t control. http://www.sublimeyourtime.com/2014/11/09/zone-control/
POB 2016-02-18 07:45:53
Anyone got thoughts on this?It does not sound ilogical or wrong to me. Maybe what happens is a combination of what you and @heyhey said. We should know for a fact our natural survival mechanisms are constantly at play, even if we are not aware of it. Problem is we (of the civilized western world) live in a society that is safe (from nature's harm at least) and has an abundance of resources. To us this survival stuff is completely outdated and unecessary, thus creating some disconfort both in men (angry Alpha 1.0s) and women (as a whole). So to answer our question: why women have emotional ups and downs and like to be miserable from time to time? My bet is because they're biologically wired to do so. The diference is between the ones who really love and embrace it (and make millions selling books or making tv series and films about this stuff) and the very few who try (but fail) to control it.
BlindIo 2016-02-18 11:26:05
Another thought occurs. In current hunter-gatherer societies they have a reverse relationship to sex and food compared to us. They have sex pretty much whenever they want but have to hunt for food and sex can to some degree make up for a lack of food. In our society we eat whenever we damn well please and have to hunt for sex, and we eat more to compensate for sexual frustration. Maybe the real problem is that women don't get enough sex. Maybe they need a regular injection of happy juice in order to be what passes for happy for women. That combined with pills etc likely equals mental instability in our current society.
Blackdragon 2016-02-18 13:25:56
The question is why do women apparently have a need to be miserable at regular intervals.The theory I have read is that when we were cavemen, men couldn't afford to be happy/sad/happy/sad all the time because we were out hunting saber-toothed tigers and shit. Having an emotional day could mean death. Whereas the women back in the cave could be emotionally up-and-down as they liked; those little kids weren't going to kill them if they had an off day.
Well, it’s not like the majority of men is consistently happy.Correct, as I described in the article. Betas are too scared to be happy and Alpha 1.0s want something else.
Maybe a woman with goals similar to BD’s would find men in her life a great source of drama.Such a woman would still be a woman, and thus still have those mood swings. Though not as bad as most women.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-02-18 15:30:04
JOB From my little experience of red pill sites, yes they seem like traditionalists, raging against women, wanting to move back in time.I'm going to reluctantly agree with you here. The men's rights movement and the MGTOW movement are both becoming more and more traditional (read: blue pill) in their thinking. But the red pill, while still anti-feminist, points in the opposite direction.
They consider where I am from (Denmark) wildly feminist, even though it is not feminist at all unless thats defined by women not depending on men. I cant see any logic.As I understand it, Denmark is probably the most sexually liberated country in the world today; that is to say, it has a minimum of traditionalism (a la Saudi Arabia) and also a minimum of sex-negative feminism (a la Sweden). MRAs have no direct quarrel with sex-positive feminists (or at least they didn't until they started embracing Victorian values).
Like them you also seem very angry and even want to promote that anger. Why?I want to promote justice.
Havent you already lost if you get angry?Not necessarily.
I read the piece you mentioned and cant see the problem? She wants millionaires, so what?So she objectifies men as bank accounts with legs. She uses men as objects for her gender neutral desires. Do you truly not see a problem here? This is female supremacy and bigotry against men. It dehumanizes us and is pretty sick.
You consider yourself heroically un-pc by hurling mere insults at womenYou keep calling attention to the fact that she's a woman. Would it be better if she were a man? Do women have some special immunity from criticism because they have vaginas? That sounds like an endorsement of female superiority to me.
but she cant have a preference? It doesnt make sense.No! She can't prefer to marry men, file for divorce, contest the prenuptial agreement on the grounds of "emotional damages" and then steal half the man's money and live comfortably off of it, which she admitted she wants to do in her second comment in the comments section over there. No, that's not an okay preference. That is anti-male abuse! And it should be criminal.
Its generally all this anger and negativity, I dont like.And I don't like men (here in America) being abused and put into homeless shelters by ex-wives like her. A little negativity is a small price for a woman like her to pay. Too small. She deserves far worse (i.e. imprisonment).
As if women are an enemy that needs to know their place.No, women are not the enemy that need to know their place. Instead, certain types of people are the enemy that need to know their place, and she definitely qualifies as that type of person (penis or vagina doesn't matter).
Why else would you need all the abuse?Like I said, compared to what she wants to do to men (read her second comment over there in the comments section), my "abuse" is nothing. In a perfect world, she would be handcuffed by police, charged with attempted theft, extortion, contract fraud (the prenup), breach of contract, and felony perjury (in divorce court) and would spend decades in prison. And you're calling me out for a little bit of anger? Please!
It seems poor attitude to me, hardly in tune with this site or indeed likely to promote happiness.Sorry about that. I've just seen lots of men get put into homeless shelters by people like her. Maybe because you're in Denmark you don't understand.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-02-18 15:45:32
The point of this blog is happiness and loving women.I judge people on an individual case by case basis. No one gets love from me just because of the way they were born.
If JOB doesn’t ‘love’ a particular woman > next. He needs to ‘next’ Sadie, not ‘Set Her Straight’. He seems VERY Alpha 1.0 to me.There is a huge difference between a woman I'm seducing or sleeping with and a woman who I'm intellectually discussing something with and whom I'll never meet or seduce in real life. The purpose of Nexting is to train a woman you're sleeping with to not give you drama and know your boundaries so that you may continue being happy with her. But I have no interest in being happy with this particular woman whom I'll never meet. Nexting doesn't apply here. I see no reason not to scold her for her shameful bigotry.
Too much anger going around there. There must be a story behind that…Oh for fuck sake, please drop the psycho-analysis. You sound like a cliché ex-girlfriend.
Jack Outside the Box 2016-02-18 15:52:37
I think I will have to start reading the Girls With Game siteTo be fair, most of Girls-With-Game is pretty red pill/sex-positive gold. Kryptokate, for example, is absolutely fantastic! She represents the red pill gold standard of female behavior. Hitori is her equal. Lovergirl is pretty cool too. The rest of the women there range from okay to semi-okay in the sexual enlightenment/red pill department. The most glaring exception thus far is Greygirl (Sadie) whose beliefs are stereotypically traditional/Disney/1950s hell! To my knowledge though, no one else over there wants to return to the time when women were our parasites.
Alejandro 2016-02-19 09:12:08
When people ask you how happy you are to be a dad, you remember that little moment, not the pain prior that lasted four entire days.True. Parenting can make you unhappy, but a part of it is also the work, stress and time required to give your kids a happy life. When the kids leave you are happy because they are self sufficient and don't need to be taken care of, not because you didn't wanted them in the house. And you also need to take into account what happens when you get older. Put all the studies you want you won't convince me that an old lonely woman in her late 60's or 70's is happier than an old woman whose children and grandchildren call her and visit her often.
Blackdragon 2016-02-19 13:08:41
Parenting can make you unhappy, but a part of it is also the work, stress and time required to give your kids a happy life. When the kids leave you are happy because they are self sufficient and don’t need to be taken care of, not because you didn’t wanted them in the house.Irrelevant.
Put all the studies you want you won’t convince me that an old lonely woman in her late 60’s or 70’s is happier than an old woman whose children and grandchildren call her and visit her often.1. That doesn't happen. Old people's number one complaint, outside of health issues, is that their kids don't contact them often enough. Once your kids move out of the house, you have zero control over them (outside of Asian cultures anyway). 2. You're assuming the only way for a woman to not be lonely in her 60s and 70s is to have kids. There are at least ten other ways she can avoid loneliness, perhaps more.
Alejandro 2016-02-19 17:14:57
You’re assuming the only way for a woman to not be lonely in her 60s and 70s is to have kids. There are at least ten other ways she can avoid loneliness, perhaps more.Nobody will care about her the way her son or daughter would.
Blackdragon 2016-02-19 20:38:47
Nobody will care about her the way her son or daughter would.You're delusional. In the Western world, this is not what usually happens. Old people constantly bitch about how their kids don't take care of them. Look up the stats on where the typical American in their 70s ends up. Hint: Not only are their kids no where to be found, but they usually can't afford to help their parents even if they wanted to. But feel free to go though all the unhappiness of having kids so that you can be old and lonely in your 70s and spend your time waiting around for your grown-up kids and grandkids to come visit you. Sounds like a great plan. I'll be doing something different.
Alejandro 2016-02-21 15:31:50
I’ll be doing something different.Um, how would that be different. You have kids yourself. But yes, family in the west is not what it used to be. Having children nowadays is nowhere near a guarantee of not being lonely in your old age. Point taken.
Blackdragon 2016-02-21 16:08:48
Um, how would that be different. You have kids yourself.In no way whatsoever am I planning on or expecting my kids to love me, spend time with me, or make me happy in my 60s or 70s. Or 50s for that matter. My happiness in my older years up to me, not my grown kids who will likely have better things to do. Thus my long-term plan for happiness doesn't involve them except as an unexpected bonus.
Phaze 2016-04-22 03:25:25
Chakras need to be taken into consideration. Men are more connected with the root chakra (physical). Hard things are "set in stone", consistent. Women are more connected to the sacral chakra (water/emotions). Symbolized by the yin yang symbol is the constant swirling of watery emotions. the tide. And yes the moon is part of that cycle. Makes me wonder what living on a planet without a moon would do to women. As someone once told me, Men are pricks and women are luney/looney. The aggressive mars man The crazy/looney moon woman 🙂