A man courting a woman is implicitly making a status claim: I am good enough for you – in Red Pill terminology, my SMV (sexual market value) meets or exceeds yours. Because other women use male attention to measure SMV and status, such a claim can be threatening to its target because, from a low-status male, it threatens to lower her status, especially if she accepts it.On the plus side, if a woman who is close to your league is being particularly nasty, that means you have a real shot if you up your Game. So, while it might not be fun to experience initially, it's very useful information.
A woman can deal with this by not merely rejecting a man she evaluates as not being worthy, but publicly insulting him for trying. “How dare you think you’re good enough for me?” is different from a simple “Not interested” because it’s a status defense.
Thus, hot chicks are systematically cruel to beta nerds. It’s a way of socially protecting the proposition that their SMV is high enough to capture a real alpha, and their status among peers.
But – and here’s my insight – it’s even worse than that.
Consider two cases. Bob is slightly lower status than Alice. Ted is much lower status than Alice. Both of them court Alice. She doesn’t think either has SMV to match hers, so her response is to reject both. But: Which one is the bigger status threat?
No, it’s not Ted. The status difference between him and Alice is quite visible to her peers; he can be easily dismissed as just nuts for pitching out of his league. Bob, on the other hand, may look plausible – and the closer to good enough he looks, the more likely it is that the status claim he makes by courting Alice will adjust her status downwards among her peers.
So it’s Bob who will get the cruel, status-defensive rejection, not Ted.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
When higher status makes it worse
ESR adds his contribution to the theory of Game: