Strategies for the Iterated Prisoners’ Dilemma

A fresh look at “Christian Game” as a potentially winning arrangement.

Readership: Men
Reader’s Note:
In this post, game theory is about decision making strategies, not about the PUA kind of game, although they can and do overlap.
Length: 2,350 words
Reading Time: 8 minutes


This post is intended to let readers become more aware of game theories with the purpose of gaining an objective view towards important real-life applications.

Other posts in this series which you may want to read before continuing on.

Also, readers are encouraged to click on the many links contained in this post for further reading about game theory.

“Shall we attempt this one? Let’s do it!”

Kevin Cronan (lead singer of the supergroup, REO Speedwagon)

The Evolution of Winning Strategies

In this section, “evolution” describes how two players who are initially unfamiliar with the other’s strategy will, upon multiple adaptive reiterations, eventually learn how to cooperate in a mutually beneficial fashion.

In a relationship, “success” or “winning” can be interpreted in two different ways.

  1. Gaining more “points” than the opponent. In real life, “points” could be interpreted as a wide number of things, including affirmation, attention, control, favor, love, loyalty, recognition, respect, and others.
  2. Achieving a mutually beneficial play strategy, characterized by various milestones, such as altruism, commitment, harmony, honor, humility, trust, and others.

Those who are young, emotionally energetic, and spiritually immature usually start off under the assumption of the first definition above. As time and experience leads to maturity, most people eventually come to appreciate the second definition.

Robert Axelrod used an algorithm to show a possible mechanism for the evolution of altruistic behavior from mechanisms that are initially purely selfish, by natural selection. It was later applied to the Prisoner’s Dilemma in order to model the evolution of altruism.

Axelrod discovered that when encounters were repeated over a long period of time with many players, each with different strategies, greedy strategies tended to do very poorly in the long run while more altruistic strategies did better, as judged purely by self-interest.

This is because, in reality, humans display a systemic bias towards cooperative behavior in socio-sexual games, much more so than predicted by simple models of “rational” self-interested action. This has been proven by alternate game simulations which adopted group-based motivations.

For example, one model based on a different kind of rationality, where people forecast how the game would be played if they formed coalitions and then they maximize their forecasts, has been shown to make better predictions of the rate of cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma and similar games given only the payoffs of the game. In other words, group socialization coerces players to be honest (sooner or later) for the benefit of participating in the group.

So apparently, one’s initial degree of rational self-interest makes little difference in the long run of life; what matters is how one plays the game, and whether one learns to be cooperative. I believe this is where the failure in the current mating marketplace lies. A significant segment of the population is not playing the game (e.g. MGTOW, incels), and another large segment is not learning to be cooperative (e.g. PUAs, frivorcing wimminz).

1952 Cadillac Pick-Up

2 Approaches to Develop an Optimal Strategy

Deriving the optimal strategy is generally done in two ways:

  1. The Empirical Approach: Monte Carlo simulations of populations have been made, where individuals with low scores die off, and those with high scores reproduce. Thus, a Genetic Algorithm sets forth a context for finding an optimal strategy, which is mimicked by evolutionary psychology models in the Red Pill lore. It results in either the “Brute Force” or the “Capitulation” options described in NovaSeeker’s post. We could also call this “The Law of the Jungle”. The mix of algorithms in the final population generally depends on the mix in the initial population. The introduction of mutation (random variation during reproduction) lessens the dependency on the initial population. Empirical experiments with such systems tend to produce Tit for Tat players (described below), but no analytic proof exists that this will always occur.
  2. The Analytical Approach: Initially, the characteristics of other players are unknown or incomplete, and so part of the approach involves developing a system of beliefs about the population, perhaps by using the Bandit or Exploration Strategies, (described below). If the statistical distribution of opposing strategies can be determined (e.g. 50% Tit for Tat, 50% Always Cooperate) an optimal counter-strategy can be derived analytically. The particular strategy that is settled upon is largely dependent on the characteristic and beliefs of the individual, whereas the preferred strategies of the larger population matter less. This is the “Single Tailored” option described in NovaSeeker’s post. Men who hunt for a better church, or go abroad in search of a wife, are seeking to place themselves within a social context having a different (less known) or unknown statistical distribution of opposing strategies. This offers a different set of boundary conditions in which a preferred solution can evolve through a Bayesian Nash Equilibrium. We could also call this the “Pioneer” or “Greener Pastures” approach.
1952 Chevrolet Pick-Up Truck

The Bandit Strategy

Concerning new players (viz. players that have just been introduced as partners in an iterative game), the Bandit Problem models an agent that simultaneously attempts to acquire new knowledge (called “exploration”) and optimize his or her decisions based on existing knowledge (called “exploitation”). The agent attempts to balance these competing tasks in order to maximize his or her total value over the period of time considered.

The Bandit Problem is used as a model of resource investment to help determine the optimal dynamic allocation of resources to different projects, answering the question of how much time and money should be devoted to each one, given uncertainty about the difficulty and payoff of each possibility.

There are many practical applications of the bandit model, for example:

  • Adaptive Routing (e.g. network development) – Focuses on broadening social connections and minimizing delays and inconveniences.
  • Clinical Trials (e.g. medical research) – Investigating the effects of different experimental treatments while minimizing losses.
  • Portfolio Design (e.g. stock finances) – Through trial and error, discovering and curating a tailored collection of personal traits and methods that will work best for developing a robust strategy.

We can see the Bandit Strategy being employed by people in the SMP. Men and women will opt to meet and date several partners, sometimes simultaneously, in order to “explore” and “exploit” (as described above), in an effort to quickly ascertain the return on investment potential, and which person(s) to pursue as a long(er) term interest.

1952 Dodge half-ton Pick-Up Truck

The Exploration vs. Exploitation Tradeoff

In the practical examples described in the previous section, the problem requires balancing reward maximization based on the knowledge already acquired with attempting new actions to further increase knowledge. This is known as the Exploitation vs. Exploration Tradeoff in Reinforcement Learning.

To put forth an example, perhaps you may have noticed how those people who chose not to “play by the rules” are the same people who insist most vehemently on strict rule following.

What we are witnessing here is a manifestation of the Exploitation vs. Exploration Tradeoff in Reinforcement Learning. In simple terms, this means that people who have had a lot of experience and who have made a lot of mistakes, usually become wiser and more proficient in the process. These people are able to point out the problems and errors to others, but they cannot transmit their own wisdom of experience to others who have a different character and who face a different life situation. This is because the accumulation of knowledge can only happen through one’s own personal engagement in Exploitation and Exploration.

We also see the Exploitation vs. Exploration Tradeoff occurring in people who didn’t do much Exploration in their youth, and then suddenly realize later in life that they could have had a much better life, and could have attained more of their desires and goals, had they engaged in more Exploration. This sudden realization is called the Epiphany Stage for women, and Midlife Crisis for men. So then they try to overcompensate for regret by going heavy on Exploitation, (e.g. having an affair, getting a divorce, going back to the SMP, etc.), with the mind to use the knowledge they have gained through experience, and the resources and opportunities they have accumulated (which they were lacking when they were younger), to “revise their life choices” in order to actualize their own personality and realize their deeper desires in life.

Engaging in the Exploitation vs. Exploration Tradeoff is often colloquially called, “coming to terms with one’s self”. A quick, clean, easy process, it is anything but.

Fred Sanford‘s 1952 Ford F-1 Pick-Up Truck

Interestingly, to those who never came to terms with themselves, it appears that those who insist on getting certain results in life by NOT following the same approach that got those same results for themselves, and instead insist on a different set of rules in which it is manifestly harder to obtain *any* results at all, leaving aside similar results to their own — well, it just seems asinine. They cannot relate.

It’s kinda like that aphorism, “Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results is a symptom of lunacy.” This impasse in communication is caused by a failure to engage in Exploitation and Exploration, and this hesitation is usually because one is afraid to forfeit anything in the Tradeoff.

Christians regularly scoff at the prospect of engaging in Exploitation and Exploration, but actually this is an important part of the maturing process, especially when we’re young. Jesus told us,

26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.  27 And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.  28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it29 lest, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish’?  31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand?  32 Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace.  33 So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple.

Luke 14:26-33 (NKJV)

One way to interpret verses 26-28 is that one must be willing to take great risks in his pursuit of Truth, and not care too much about the costs or the outcome. The Truth here is Jesus Christ specifically, but this also includes “coming to terms” with one’s relationship to Christ. Once the Truth has been obtained, then one is in a better position to assess his own strengths and position in life, and as described in verses 29-32, is less likely to make a catastrophically bad decision (or go through a mid-life crisis, etc.).

Yes, this is the same kind of truck that Fred Sanford had. But this one has received a lot of TLC.

The Pavlov Strategy

In another strategy called the Pavlov Strategy (also called Win-Stay, Lose-Switch), the learning rule bases its decision only on the outcome of the previous play. If the play on the previous round resulted in a success, then the agent plays the same strategy on the next round. Alternatively, if the play resulted in a failure, the agent switches to another action.

For example, if the last round outcome was Defect/Defect, and then this is interpreted by the player as a failure to cooperate, then a Pavlov player will switch strategies the next turn. If for some reason, this same outcome is interpreted by the player as a success, then a Pavlov player will use the same strategy on the next round.

A large-scale empirical study of players of the game Rock, Paper, Scissors showed that some variation of the Pavlov Strategy is adopted by real-world players of the game, instead of the Nash Equilibrium strategy of choosing entirely at random between the three options.

For a certain range of parameters, the Pavlov Strategy beats all other strategies by giving preferential treatment to co-players who resemble the Pavlovian player.

1952 GMC Pick-Up Truck

The Tit for Tat Strategy

According to Axelrod, the winning deterministic strategy was Tit for Tat. This strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game. After that, the player does what his or her opponent did on the previous move.

Depending on the situation, a slightly better strategy can be Tit for Tat with Forgiveness. When the opponent defects, on the next move, the player sometimes cooperates anyway, with a small probability (around 1–5%). This allows for occasional recovery from getting trapped in a cycle of Defections. The exact probability depends on the line-up of opponents.

This may partly explain why arranged marriages fare better over the long haul – because in an arranged marriage, both partners enter into the marriage with the mind to cooperate, even though they do not know what their partner will do. Also, they have the assumption that it is an iterative game, rather than a single iteration which is the common mindset among those who meet by chance and embark in whirlwind dating. As a consequence, the iterative game begins with a fast start having good returns, setting both partners farther along the learning curve.

1952 International Pick-Up Truck

The Cooperate-Defect Fiasco

Although Tit for Tat is considered to be the most robust (and most popular) basic strategy, a team from Southampton University in England (led by Professor Nicholas Jennings and consisting of Rajdeep Dash, Sarvapali Ramchurn, Alex Rogers, and Perukrishnen Vytelingum) introduced a new strategy at the 20th Anniversary Iterated Prisoners’ Dilemma Competition, which proved to be more successful than Tit for Tat. This strategy relied on collusion between programs to achieve the highest number of points for a single program. The university submitted 60 programs to the competition, which were designed to recognize each other through a series of five to ten moves at the start. Once this recognition was made, one program would always Cooperate and the other would always Defect, assuring the maximum number of points for the Defector. If the program realized that it was playing a non-Southampton player, it would continuously Defect in an attempt to minimize the score of the competing program. As a result, this strategy ended up taking the top three positions in the competition, as well as a number of positions towards the bottom.

This strategy takes advantage of the fact that multiple entries were allowed in this particular competition and that the performance of a team was measured by that of the highest-scoring player (meaning that the use of self-sacrificing players was a form of minmaxing). In a competition where one has control of only a single player, Tit for Tat is certainly a better strategy.

1952 Hudson Hornet Custom Pick-Up

This strategy also relies on circumventing the rules about the Prisoners’ Dilemma in that there is no communication allowed between the two players, which the Southampton programs arguably did with their opening “ten move dance” to recognize one another; this only reinforces just how valuable communication can be in shifting the balance of the game.

The Cooperate-Defect Fiasco is employed in relationships, and much too often. One partner Cooperates more often than not, while the other habitually Defects. Also, the Defecting partner is frequently engaged in multiple socio-sexual interactions (or has had in the past), which allows the benefits of the Bandit Strategy to increase one’s learning, leading to greater confidence and capability. Adopting this strategy allows the Defecting partner to continually “win”, and this is usually manifested in his/her total control over the relationship. Meanwhile, the Cooperating partner sacrifices and suffers, sometimes indefinitely and without hope. Those who continually choose to be Cooperating within a Cooperate-Defect arrangement must have a strong and steadfast psychological justification for doing so, such as a stubborn Blue Pill mentality, self-righteous Chivalry, natural loyalty, the “Nice Guy” (or nice girl) syndrome, strong social reinforcement, religious beliefs, emotional codependency, “Hole in the Soul”, or a personality defect. While this is arguably the best strategy of all for the Defector, it is the absolute worst strategy of all for the Cooperator.

In addition to the fine arguments presented by Robert Glover in his book, No More Mr. Nice Guy (which I highly recommend), this is further evidence of why “nice guys finish last”. In other words, the Always Cooperate strategy is doomed to fail in a population in which any other self-interested strategy is practiced by an opponent.

1952 Mack Flat-Bed Truck

Necessary Conditions for a Cooperative Winning Strategy

By analyzing the top-scoring strategies, Axelrod stated four conditions necessary for a strategy to be successful.

  1. Nice — The most important condition is that the strategy must be “nice”, that is, it will not defect before its opponent does (this is sometimes referred to as an “optimistic” algorithm). Almost all of the top-scoring strategies were nice; therefore, a purely selfish strategy will not “cheat” on its opponent, for purely self-interested reasons first.
  2. Retaliating — However, Axelrod contended that the successful strategy must not be a blind optimist. It must sometimes retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate. This is a very bad choice, as “nasty” strategists will ruthlessly exploit such players, resulting in a Cooperate-Defect Fiasco.
  3. Forgiving — Successful strategies must also be forgiving. Though players will retaliate, they will once again fall back into a pattern of cooperating if the opponent does not continue to defect. This stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, and thereby maximizes “points”.
  4. Non-Envious — The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to score more than the opponent. In essence, this requires switching one’s definition of “success” or “winning” from the first definition to the second, given at the beginning of this essay.
1952 REO Speedwagon Pick-Up Truck


Being Nice, Forgiving, and Non-Envious agrees with the general Christian concept of maintaining a healthy relationship. Of note, Eggerich teaches that both partners in a union must carry a good will towards the other. But one necessary condition for having a successful strategy, Retaliating, is consistently ignored or condemned by Christian circles as being “unchristian”, especially where men are concerned. Thus, it is of supreme importance to investigate and employ strategies that embrace conflict.

In addition, the Analytical Approach is often condemned as lonerish or anti-social, if not ignored altogether, and the Bandit Strategy is usually labeled as immature, even though it increases the learning rate, and improves one’s confidence and game playing capabilities.

Perhaps worst of all, the Cooperate-Defect Fiasco is often advised or pressed upon good-willed persons who are stuck with an evil-willed partner, with the idea that he/she is “suffering for (or like) Christ unto salvation”.

In our attempts to condemn and contain sin, we must be careful not to condemn those approaches and strategies which are most valuable and effective towards defeating sin.

So what’s your preferred table for playing ’52 Pick-Up? Cadillac styling, Chevy reliability, Dodge the whole thing, cannot afFord, GMC tough, Hornet stealth, Mack Truck’s bulldog indomitability, sexy Speedwagon, or will you go International?

Or to put it another way, as the bards of old have foretold,

“If you’re tired of the same old story, then roll with the changes!”


About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Decision Making, Determination, Discernment, Wisdom, Game, Game Theory, Introspection, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Organization and Structure, Purpose, Relationships, Self-Concept, Strategy. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Strategies for the Iterated Prisoners’ Dilemma

  1. Lysimachus says:

    The issue is that the current SMP/MMP fiasco is largely a coordination problem. While the cooperation strategy in Prisoner’s Dilemma is better for society as a whole, in current social and cultural climate there are huge individual incentives for women and top men to play “defect” – and, predictably, many of them do. As a result, those who still choose to cooperate often lose – and the cost of losing are extremely high for men (divorce rape, children taken away, losing half of assets, etc.). That creates race to the bottom which we see in current relationship market. This is also why we often see major secular red pillers emphasizing that modern relationships are a zero sum game. Of course, true Christian marriage, which is covenant before God in which husband and wife become one flesh, is not a zero sum game, but few people have truely Christian marriages – many marriages among Christians are hardly distinguishable from secular ones, hence the divorce rates among Evangelicals and Catholics are only slightly lesser than among seculars (and even truely Christian wifes may eventually succumb to current perverse incentives and their temptation). The coordination problems are notoriously hard to manage (think of Tragedy of the Commons) – to solve them it is necessary to completely overhaul the existing power dynamics and incentive structures, which is not going to happen anytime soon. As a society we went too far on the way of no return and I think it will take God’s direct intervention to rectify things.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      The overlay you’re talking about exists because we are not playing the game in a controlled vacuum. There is a context, and that context is a big thumb on the scale. That thumb is in part social and legal, as the manosphere talks about a lot, but it’s also in part physical/biological, because the route to relationships leads through the SMP (the door of the MMP is located inside the SMP because dating is an SMP convention), and the SMP is a market where women dominate due to the differential in sexual desire and demand as between the sexes. This is important because this is the context in which the relationship dynamic — the dynamic within which the game is played, is determined, and it is generally very hard to change that dynamic once it is established — it’s possible, but it’s very hard to do. So the context in which the game is being played is heavily skewed, and in that context it’s very hard for women in particular not to constantly defect. The power is too imbalanced for them not to do otherwise. There are exceptional women who will not do that, but because of this market dynamic which creates the imbalance that makes it much more attractive to constantly defect, there are far too few of them for them to be relevant for any group of men.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Lysimachus says:

        Indeed. The great thing about marriage 1.0 system was not only that it was consistent with Christian morality, but also, on a purely rational level, heavily incentivized cooperation in the Prisoner Dilemma, and disincentivized defecting. The current system does the exact opposite. I agree it is unrealistic to expect women not to defect en masse, since individual incentives are so strong in favor of defecting, especially in short term. It is true that for many women defecting might result in misery when they are 50, with cats, STD and no family, but most people are terrible in long-term planning and rarely think about results that far down the road (or think they will be the ones who get away with it and avoid bad results of their actions). It seems like there is very little that can be done on societal level through ordinary means to somewhat restore the balance, let alone bring back social order consistent with Christian morality – God can always work out a miracle (which seems likely due to numerous Catholic private revelations, including Church-approved ones like Fatima, Akita, etc., which predict apostasy in the Church and subsequent chastisement sent by God), but on a human level, it is largely over.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        most people are terrible in long-term planning and rarely think about results that far down the road (or think they will be the ones who get away with it and avoid bad results of their actions)

        Right. The tendency to discount the distant personal future is not entirely irrational, either — after all, it may never come to pass at all, or if it does come to pass, so many things could be unpredictably different as between now and then that planning for then as if a straight line of factual development between now and then were to play out (which is what people who like to plan normally do) may be the most rational in circumstances where long-term stability seems assured, but in fast-changing, evolving, emergent scenarios it may, in fact, be the least rational, because the distant personal future is, in such times (and ours is one such time) almost uniquely unpredictable.

        The great thing about marriage 1.0 system was not only that it was consistent with Christian morality, but also, on a purely rational level, heavily incentivized cooperation in the Prisoner Dilemma, and disincentivized defecting. The current system does the exact opposite.

        Yes, which is why the removal of the natural check looms so large. The reason why M1.0 in our culture seemed a good deal to both sexes was that women could not easily avoid pregnancy effectively (natural/herbal/alchemical methods were nothing close to as reliable as contemporary scientific ones). That changed the game, as Paul VI pointed out in Humanae Vitae … but almost all people disagreed with him, including almost all Christians of all stripes. Utter rebellion — not just against God but against his created order itself. In any case, when the rules of the game were changed like that, the old rules of M1.0 became utterly unattractive to most women, and so it was dropped — dropped because women could do so, because they hold the power in the SMP, and the MMP is, again, entered by means of the SMP. Women make up the rules here, not men.

        Liked by 4 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “…(the door of the MMP is located inside the SMP because dating is an SMP convention), and the SMP is a market where women dominate due to the differential in sexual desire and demand as between the sexes.”

        Who dominates the MMP then? Is it the men when they are holding the commitment cards, but it shifts back to the woman once she has the marriage contract signed, i.e. she now holds most, if not all, the relationship’s legal cards?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Who dominates the MMP then? Is it the men when they are holding the commitment cards, but it shifts back to the woman once she has the marriage contract signed, i.e. she now holds most, if not all, the relationship’s legal cards?

        Women still dominate it for the most part because the MMP is a subsidiary of the SMP. If a woman won’t date you, you aren’t getting into the MMP, and whether she dates you is a question of the SMP/dating.

        When women are “husband hunting” — i.e., dating in the specific search for husbands, they change their standards, but generally they are still in the power position, which is why so many betas get easily snared when women come looking for them as husbands in their early 30s. The women are in control when they do that, too.

        Now, women do not have the power to get the guys they are riding in the CC/dating years to marry them, in most cases, that’s true. But when women switch to focusing on dating to find a husband, unless they are unattractive, they still retain the edge in power through dating, which is a woman’s game in all cases other than for the top guys (which these women can access for sexual dating but have no marital pull over). The women who are in the less powerful position when they shift to husband hunting are women who are either (1) unattractive (and these women had the least of the sexual power to begin with) or (2) trying to marry guys who are too attractive for them to be interested in marrying the woman in question (or anyone). Case (1) is the basket case, case (2) is the case of a woman who refuses to “change lanes” like Kate Bolick.

        Men like to think that they hold power over commitment, but this is generally false, because most men women are going for when they lane change during the epiphany phase are thirsty guys, and the women have power over them — these men are eager to trade commitment for marriage. If they decline, the woman will find another thirsty beta who is eager to marry for the prospect of regular sex, so he has little to no real power. The men who hold power over commitment are generally the same men the women are riding in the CC/dating years and, yes, it’s very hard for any specific woman to get one of those guys to commit to marry her.

        Essentially, for average guys, you never have power in the market now. You absolutely must be well above average in order to have any market power because of how skewed the market dynamics are, and how the marriage market is embedded in the dating market, where women hold power due to the prevalence of thirsty men and high male demand at all levels lower than the top echelons.

        Average is over.

        Liked by 2 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “Essentially, for average guys, you never have power in the market now.”

        So on an absolutist scale, that would be the men rated a 5 on the1-10 scale, and because of the skew you’re referring to, that would be all the men below an 8 correct (80-20 rule, the top 20% are the 8s, 9s, and 10s) ? For the the 1-10 scale, I’ve been labeling it: 10-Apex man (top 1%?), 9-Really good man (top 10%?), 8-Good man (top 20%), 7-Decent man, 6-Okay, 5-so-so, 4-poor, 3-Bad, 2-Really bad, and 1-the worst. Is there more accurate verbiage that could be used for the 1-10 scale instead of the above? Also, I suppose the MMP ladies, the thirty somethings, are not getting a ring from the 8s and above, and are settling for what, the 7s? 6s?


      • Novaseeker says:

        s there more accurate verbiage that could be used for the 1-10 scale instead of the above?

        That seems accurate enough to me, although such things are very controversial, as you can recall from the last conversation around here about women’s “rating” scale.

        Also, I suppose the MMP ladies, the thirty somethings, are not getting a ring from the 8s and above, and are settling for what, the 7s? 6s?

        That depends on a lot of things.

        Generally the ones who need to settle are 6s, because 6s are the “peak hypergamy” level. That is there are a lot of them (they are only one deviation from the standard 5 and so very numerous), and they are able to access male 8s in the SMP on the “CC”. So they need to settle hard when they change lanes, generally, for male 6s to whom they would not give the time of day in their 20s.

        As to what happens with female 7s, that is market specific. It depends on how many of them there are in the market relative to more attractive women, and how many men there are who are 7s or even 8s who may be interested in marrying them (in my scale, 7s generally are attractive as wives for everyone, but higher rated men may only select from the more sweet/feminine 7s and not the more “in your face” 7s). In a market with a lot of 8s, more 7s may be “stuck” with settling for male 7s, because there are more 8s to take up marital demand from male 8s — and there’s where a sweet/feminine high 7 (like 7.75) can be competitive, but a more “lawyerette” hot-but-difficult 7.4 would not be, in terms of trying to entice a male 8 to choose her over a difficult female 8 for marriage. In a market where there are fewer 8s than in other places, the market position of 7s is improved.

        Liked by 2 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      All of life, including Christan marriages but excluding salvation are a 0 sum game

      Liked by 1 person

  2. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    JACK,this how I do it!!
    Living free,living easy,season ticket on a one-way ride, on the devolution winning!(Like charlie sheen!with HIV!)!
    Going down!Party-time!
    Highway to hell!
    Hey satan!Paid my dues!
    BANDITP.S.What about the professor strategem?
    Day-time nurses& physical therapists love my ’76 PONTIAC TRANSAM body/but ’77 front-end pontiac trans am truck car, going ”eastbound&down” after leaving their ”special day weddings” on the run with me from the law!!
    Oh,they look good tonight(KISS in ’85) taking zero-risks!
    Let the preachers wipe their arse with licenses right arseniohall!?
    Eastbound&down to hell,load-up the brimstone&hellfire!!
    Were going to do what, the MGTOWS say can’t be done!
    We got a lot of hoes to marry off!
    The beta boys are thirsty in america!
    While dal’ whistles metallic dixie in texarkana!
    These churchians&hos are determined to get you in jail&hell!
    Satans time is short!
    With all these worthless ho cohorts!
    RISKTAKINGP.S.Dodging countless cop cars through america is’nt enough risk-taking!?
    Especialy in part 2 of all this betting&risk-taking chaos!!
    EPILOUGE MARK8:36:”What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world&loses his soul”?
    CONCLUSIONS JOB2:4:”And SATAN anwsered the lord.and said,skin for skin.yes all that a man has will he give for his life”
    Anymore rap or bible verse battles?

    Liked by 3 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      ”Dreams are made to be exactly what they are, PAL!DREAMS!!REALITY is custom-made clothes!,limosines!,pick-up trucks!,PONTIAC TRANS AM’s(WIMMINZ FAVE CAR to lust after!!)!,rolex watches!,BLOND HAIR!!STYLING&PROFILING!Yes!Any ho,just like that!YOU GOTTA HAVE TO BE BORN A ALPHA-MGTOW!YOU GOTTA HAVE IT INSIDE!YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE ASSAULT ON LIFE ITSELF!THATS WHY, SOME THINK I’VE LOST IT!NO!!I’VE HAD IT(NATURAL CHRISTIAN-GAME!)ALL MY LIFE!WOO…”!!!P.S.The professor is whats happening daddy, with all the mgtows&day-time nurses today!WOO…AAP.S.The professor has been called lonerish&anti-social by churchians too!!MGTOW INTERNATIONAL STYLINGP.S.Tbx tokyo!home to the best MANOWARtm mgtow -dancers in the manosphere business today!See them bustin’ moves to ”BLOOD BROTHERS” on youtube for evidence!!


  3. Oscar says:

    Gimme da Speedwagon!

    Liked by 2 people

  4. thedeti says:


    1) Christian men must have standards for the women in their lives. Christian men must cut off and refuse to deal with women who cannot or will not meet their standards.

    2) Christian men must employ some kind of winning strategy. Being nice, constant cooperation, and having faith ain’t gonna cut it.

    3) The best kind of strategy is probably tit for tat, which will require some form of “retaliation”. This resembles a modified version of Game’s “2/3 rule”, summed up in Roissy’s Commandment V:

    V. Adhere to the golden ratio

    Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.

    Perhaps he doesn’t have to measure it by two thirds, but he does need to take close note of her interest and investment level, and whether her attitude is good faith and fairness, or manipulation and treachery. He must take on the attitude of

    “I expect you to follow my lead. I will show you strength, leadership, confidence, and an overall plan. I expect you to show strong and sustained interest in me and significant time investment in me, and cooperation. Neither of us has to do any of this. But if you don’t, I won’t; and if I don’t, you won’t, and I know this. We both need to presume we are being more or less honest and above board, and dealing with each other in good faith. However, if it appears you’re not doing this, I’ll confront it and cut things off.

    “I will not do the majority of the work here, all the time. I expect you to do more or less equal heavy lifting in the relationship. If you pull back, so will I. If you distance yourself, so will I. If I decide I need to pull back or distance myself, you might also do so, and I’m OK with that, and we’ll return to a place of cooperation and equal measures of effort later if we both decide that’s what we want.”

    Maybe this is all cringeworthy, and should all go without saying. But it is an attempt at formulating some sort of mental framework for a Christian man’s approach to women and relationships. I suppose it can be boiled down to “stand up for yourself, have boundaries, have standards, and refuse to deal with women who cross your lines and who don’t meet your standards”.

    This is necessary, because the Church and related family “ministries” are constantly bashing men and haranguing them. The Church is constantly telling Christian men to compromise everything, to give women everything, to let their wives nail them to crosses; to excuse wives’ dishonesty, infidelity, abuse, and treachery; and to simply tolerate increasingly intolerable conduct from women in exchange for the privilege of being married to one. The Church then tells men if they won’t do these things, that they’re not true Christians and they deserve to be divorce raped and to die alone.

    Liked by 8 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Heres the final words on churchian&secular culture! from proverbs1:My son,if EVIL men entice you,do not give in to them!
      If they say”come along with us,lets lie in wait for innocent blood,lets ambush some harmless soul,lets swallow them alive,like the grave,swallow them whole,like those who go down to the pit,we will get all sorts of valuable things!,and fill our houses with plunder,cast lots with us,we will all share,the loot!”my son,do not go along with them!
      KISS in’82 said this about MGTOW:”BETTER WATCH OUT I’M A WAR MACHINE!”
      Anything left to say!?

      Liked by 1 person

    • whiteguy1 says:

      “stand up for yourself, have boundaries, have standards, and refuse to deal with women who cross your lines and who don’t meet your standards”.

      I did such a thing and she decided to eject instead of honoring boundaries and stepping up.
      She is still trying to reel me back in.
      2 Sundays ago she wanted to ‘talk’. Dumbass me thought “good, she will want to finalize the divorce” (we are almost 2yrs in and 115K+ spent….i.e. 1/3 of our estate)…HA!
      Her first question of me: “How have you been without me?” – My response “fine”
      Her second question: “Did I break the marriage covenant?” (Crazy woman who files for divorce asks me this??!?)
      I walk away, ignoring the stupid questions. She told me she ‘forgave me’ and then handed me “A purpose driven life” bookmarked to the section about growing together, along with a bible verse from Isiah calling me a degenerate who should return to God…

      Deti, First, sorry for your loss man.

      Second, I did the same thing as you, married a woman 5yrs older than me, who had so many red flags it might has well have been a Red Chinese Parade. But I stuck with Crazy for 16yrs for the kids. And look where it got me. Be the good Christian man.

      Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        And look where it got me. Be the good Christian man.

        In my opinion, the single biggest flaw and downfall in my proposed “tit for tat”/retaliation strategy for Christian men is that you have to have at least something of an abundance mentality and a hard willingness to walk away and be alone to implement it. This runs directly counter to the way the Church trains young men. And we all know what that is:

        “women run the relationship because they’re better at it than men are. Men are crude, unrefined, boorish, sex obsessed and perverted; while women are poised, refined, pleasant, family oriented and right.

        “A man is to find one woman who will deign to accept him and immediately start serving her, giving her whatever she wants, and doing things the way she wants. He doesn’t get to have any standards or expectations for her. His job is to serve and provide according to HER standards and expectations. Any problems in the relationship are because of him, not because of her.

        “He also doesn’t get to end a relationship with her, at least not for any good reasons. Men don’t have any good, legitimate reasons for ending relationships with women. If he breaks up with her or ends a relationship with her, he’s an evil, horrible man; he’s not a true Christian, he’s not saved and he’s going to hell, and he deserves to be alone and celibate the rest of his life.”

        So to counter this, a man has to stand against that heretical teaching. He has to know that he can replace her. He must have the fortitude to walk away from her and end a relationship where he’s not getting anything he wants. I’m not sure how to do this, because what the Church teaches men about relationships has only worsened since I was a young bachelor.

        Liked by 4 people

    • Once a man gets married, he loses all the leverage he had (if any) in the relationship. Doesn’t matter how rich, famous, powerful he is. A woman can leave and take half his stuff and still have the status of having been the prior Mrs. X who left on her own terms.

      He can really only have enforceable standards if he can next her without having to cut his own legs off to do it.

      Liked by 3 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Women aren’t worth much
        Most women know this deep down ,despite what they say/How they act.

        Marraige… ie settling for something as low value as her makes anman insta-beta most of the time

        Liked by 2 people

  5. Ed Hurst says:

    The honest truth is that I ignored all of this and simply did what my convictions required, regardless of the outcome. Obedience to conviction is its own reward (AKA, shalom, peace with God). I carefully evaluate whether anyone is inside or outside the same covenant of faith, and treat them accordingly. Had I not found a covenant woman, there would have been no interest in marriage. A good or bad marriage is not a reward; it is a condition in which we pursue the Lord. He gives the marriage, or not, as He sees fit. I’m tired of reading all the chatter that assumes there is a high degree of instrumentality, and never makes room for divine miracles. Carry on without me.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      Is it wise to listen to a self-admitted false prophet concerning “divine miracles”?

      Liked by 1 person

    • SFC Ton says:

      Carry on without you?

      Looking forward to it

      Liked by 3 people

    • whiteguy1 says:

      OK Boomer

      Liked by 4 people

    • lastholdout says:

      Proverbs 19:14 suggests that the quality of a woman being prudent is from God: “House and riches are the inheritance of fathers, and a prudent wife is from the LORD.” Matthew Henry provides insightful perspective of the prudent wife of this Proverb:

      “A discreet and virtuous wife is a choice gift of God’s providence to a man: A wife that is prudent, in opposition to one that is contentious, ver. 13. For though a wife that is continually finding fault, may think it is her wit and wisdom to be so, it is really her folly; a prudent wife is meek and quiet, and makes the best of every thing. If a man has such a wife, let him not ascribe it to the wisdom of his own choice, or his own management, for the wisest have been deceived, both in and by a woman, but let him ascribe it to the goodness of God, who made him a help meet for him, and, perhaps by some hits and turns of providence, that seemed casual brought her to him. Every creature is what He makes it. Happy marriages we are sure are made in heaven.”

      A man, especially a pastor, who is blessed with a prudent wife and thinks her fine demeanor is due to “the wisdom of his own choice or his own management” is deceived.
      It is harsh to hold a man responsible for his rebellious, contentious wife. Any man who knows that a prudent wife is from none other than the Lord will have compassion for a fellow believer whose wife lacks such quality. And knowing through Proverbs and other scriptural examples what is the effect of a rebellious woman, his words will be of empathy and encouragement to the fellow. If that man is a pastor, a spiritual leader, he is obligated, in support of the husband as head and with his permission, to confront the rebellious wife and call her sinfulness out. However, that would never happen in most churches today where there lacks sensitivity to the woman’s sinful predisposition and responsibility to her husband.

      The relentless hammering by pastors, authors, and counselors to “love your wife as Christ loves the church” in the absence of instruction, correction, and admonishment for married women leads me to believe that they do not account for Proverbs 19:14, “a prudent wife is from the LORD.” They place on the man a responsibility that belongs to God—it is an impossible feat.

      Liked by 4 people

  6. SFC Ton says:

    Being Nice, Forgiving etc dries up vaginas like salt on a snail

    Liked by 3 people

  7. redpillboomer says:

    “Generally the ones who need to settle are 6s, because 6s are the “peak hypergamy” level. That is there are a lot of them (they are only one deviation from the standard 5 and so very numerous), and they are able to access male 8s in the SMP on the “CC”. So they need to settle hard when they change lanes, generally, for male 6s to whom they would not give the time of day in their 20s.”

    Makes a lot of sense. There is also a subjectivity thing going on with the 1-10 scale. If we stick with the scale verbiage I mentioned in my earlier post, then a 5, the average, is ‘So-so;’ the 6 is ‘Okay’ and the 7 is ‘Decent.’ So a man’s 5, 6 and 7 is subjective to what he considers So-so, Okay, and Decent. I also like to use the .5’s quite a bit because it allows for some leeway in my thinking, i.e. “She’s a 6.5, somewhere between Okay and Decent.

    And the above is primarily and SMP rating, i.e. physical appearance. I’m guessing the MMP has it’s own 1-10 scale then? Maybe you could comment it Novaseeker, the scale of the SMP Vs the MMP? The reason I ask that is when I think of the 27 year old I coached in the educational program, now 31 years old, I’d give her an SMP today of 6.5, maybe a 7 with her make-up/not fake-up on. Btw, I’d put her at a 7.5 to 8 when I met her at 26, and she probably was an 8.5 in her early mid-twenties judging from her social media pics from her younger years. Her MMP today? Not even a 5, So-so; probably a 4, Poor; maybe even a 3, adding up all the stuff we talk about on this blog, N-count, Alpha widowhood, etc.

    Oh, why does an older, married, fairly recently red pilled dude even care about all this stuff you might be wondering? I’m working with some younger men, and I’m trying to crystalize my thinking around this scaling issue so I can think more accurately about the SMP/MMP issues they’re dealing with these days. It seems a bit different from when I was their age.The scale was probably not any different, however the social context surrounding the scale in the 2020s seems quite different from the 1980s. Oh, and I also have a 30 year old son, recently married to a 28 year old girl (his college sweetheart); and a 29 year old daughter getting married next year to her same age fiance; so I do have a ‘dog in this fight’ so to speak concerning the twenty somethings/thirty somethings being successful in the SMP and MMP of today, not mine from yesteryear.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      The MMV scale is best viewed as a secondary screen once one has passed the SMV scale. Some women adjust their SMV scale down when husband hunting (lane changing) and others do not (Kate Bolick).

      When men are evaluating women it’s a case of additional factors that, when applied to a woman’s base SMV, raise or lower it in terms of her MMV — think of MMV as “marriage-adjusted SMV”. Those factors obviously vary by the kind of guy. Some guys downgrade for Ns, others do not. Some guys downgrade for age, others do not. Some guys downgrade for education, others for lack thereof, and others don’t care either way. Some guys downgrade for not wanting kids, others upgrade, some don’t care either way. Etc. There is no consistent way that men apply the MMV adjustments to a woman’s SMV in order to arrive at her customized-for-them MMV.

      Liked by 4 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      I’m guessing the MMP has it’s own 1-10 scale then? Maybe you could comment it Novaseeker, the scale of the SMP Vs the MMP?

      Clearly not Nova but you’re incorrect

      Chicks have to pass the boner test before she gets filtered out of the marraige material bonus round.

      Some gal might be a smp 2 and a mmp 10 but as a 2 she’ll never be considered in the (completely voluntary) mmp

      Its a similar but different equation for women when they do their lane change

      Liked by 4 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “Its a similar but different equation for women when they do their lane change.”
        Expand a bit on this for me please! Interesting thought, complete it. Thanks.

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        I’ll do my best

        Two groups of women trying to lane change

        Bat$hit crazy and won’t change their expectations to match reality. Nothing to expand on there

        Chicks adjusting their fire to target a marriage minding man will put less value on the man’s looks etc and more value on his job and what not. She can, and will, fake the funk when it comes to banging him long enough to trap him. Done deal, not her real concern.

        But he has to have a high enough MMP value to make faking it worth her while.

        He has to be dumb enough, naive enough, desperate enough, beta enough, unaware enough etc to get married.

        So her target has to be a man who is

        #1 easy to manipulate and control. Her looks are fading so lies are the only tool left

        #2) stupid, desperate etc enough to want to sign up for a state sponsored marriage

        #2) yet still have the brain power to bring the income and status she requires

        #3 yet not so icky she can’t fake liking his pecker long enough to trap him via marraige and the goverment

        Liked by 2 people

    • My scale is:
      5 = “meh”, almost invisible as neither attractive or unattractive enough to elicit a more significant response
      6 = “cute”
      7 = “pretty”
      8 = “beautiful”
      9 + = “HOT DAMN!”

      But really, a “6” will get the job done. A pleasant, perky “6” who likes to bone just you is probably the best combo possible.

      Liked by 3 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “My scale is:
        5 = “meh”, almost invisible as neither attractive or unattractive enough to elicit a more significant response
        6 = “cute”
        7 = “pretty”
        8 = “beautiful”
        9 + = “HOT DAMN!”

        Good one! Like this one too! Think I might plagiarize this from you! Helpful. Better than mine I think. Anyone else got one they think might be better, or an alternative to Kentucky Headhunter’s?

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        LOL perosnally, never go lower then a 7 with a good attitude, I mean really good.

        Women have to bring a lot in the looks, sex and personality categories to offset the mile long list of liabilities even decent chicks bring

        Liked by 2 people

  8. Oscar says:

    Tangentially On-Topic: US birth rates over the last few years.

    2021 so far 1.781 births per woman
    2020 was 1.779 births per woman
    2019 was 1.778 births per woman
    2018 was 1.776 births per woman

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: president of Milwaukee “Drag Queen Story Hour” arrested on child porn charges

    A Milwaukee judge and former president of an LGBTQ organization that sponsored Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) events has been arrested on child pornography charges.

    Judge Brett Blomme, 38, was arrested and charged with seven counts of child pornography possession. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, he is accused of uploading 27 videos and pictures of child sexual abuse to the messaging app Kik under the name “DomMasterBB.”

    Each count against Blomme carries with it a minimum sentence of three years with the potential for up to 15 years with a decade of supervised release. With seven counts charged against him, Blomme is looking at a minimum of 21 years in prison should he be convicted.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. redpillboomer says:

    “LOL perosnally, never go lower then a 7 with a good attitude, I mean really good.”

    SFC Ton, agree with you on this one! Kentucky Headhunter’s 7 with a good personality and kind heart.

    “Women have to bring a lot in the looks, sex and personality categories to offset the mile long list of liabilities even decent chicks bring.”

    I’d add to it some old-school school home economics skills as well, being able to cook and clean. She doesn’t have to do this stuff exclusively (like a 50s wife), but too many of these younger women today I’m learning are SLOBS in keeping their own bedrooms/bathrooms neat and clean, and they have NO cooking skills whatsoever.

    Thank god my wife taught my daughter how to cook, and even though she was a big-time slob as a teenager–she I had many battles over her keeping her room neat and tidy (I’m talking it looked like a tornado blew threw the room type messy), she learned to finally do it. When I visited her and her fiancé’s home it was very neat and tidy. Plus their bedroom looked really neat too; I mean including her side of the closet, her dresser and all her cosmetics in the freakin’ bathroom sink area. I thought, “Well, it is possible for ‘Princesses’ to learn this skill after all!” lol

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      “I’d add to it some old-school school home economics skills as well, being able to cook and clean.”

      I’d sum it up as managing a household. There’s a lot more to it than cooking and cleaning. It requires planning, scheduling, budgeting, etc. She needs to be able to take every penny her husband makes and stretch it to the limit. That’ll be even more important in the economic hardship that is on the horizon.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Pingback: More on the Framework of Options | Σ Frame

  12. Pingback: The Spiritual Confusion of Clinging to the “Rules” | Σ Frame

  13. Pingback: Ethical Issues Surrounding the Christian Conundrum | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: Moral Injury | Σ Frame

  15. Pingback: The Taiwanese Life Script | Σ Frame

  16. Pingback: Answers to the Exit Questions for the Series on Masculinity | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s