Black pill analysis

Going to go over some black pill videos, since we’ve gone over some of the more RP ones with Roommates, Alexander Grace and Casey Zander. Wheat Waffles (WW) seems to be one of the biggest YT black pill creators.

Instead of classifying men according to a number scale, he opts for 3 categories named sub5, normie, and chad. The following 2 videos analyze the different characteristics between these categories.

The first one is supposedly classifying yourself to sub5, normie, or chad depending on how women react to you with their facial expressions. The second video focuses on 40 different ways women react differently to men within these categories.

I watched a few more videos aside from these and it’s worth noting that the “sub 5” population that he says generally gets negative feedback right off tends to be < 10-15% of the population and generally has some type of large physical defect. Chad generally falls into > 10-15% of the population. So normies are approximately 70-80% of the population and on the number scale range from about 5-7 or so with some of these men being more attractive than others but not enough to jump to Chad status.

Here is his face rating guide if you wanted to know more about how he does it. While I agree with the overall theme, I do think he does underrate some faces that many would think are more attractive, and you can tell that at least in the 4-6ish range there will definitely be some women interested in some of the specific looks.

He also has a Looksmaxxing guide which if one is not doing many or all of these things he asserts can add 1-1.5ish points to a man’s looks. So a 3.5-5ish man (originally sub 5) might be able to go to a normie, but if a man was < 3.5 to begin with especially with significant facial issues then he’s likely to stay sub5 according to him.

It’s also worth noting that he believes if you are sub5 and obese even if you had a 2-3 type of face the lost facial fat can sometimes boost a man into the normie or even Chad range depending on the underlying facial genetics once the fat is lost.

He also has a flow chart on what you should do in your dating life depending on if you are sub5, normie, or Chad.

Aside from “looksmaxxing” there’s also the potential for other things like moneymaxxing (career that increases money to catapult you to another status level), surgerymaxxing (plastic surgery to improve looks like women do), or traveling to other countries where your status would be higher. He also advocates for warm approach and daygaming, but mainly for Chads since it works best for them. Maybe for normies but not for sub5.

Thoughts

I tend to agree with him in the general theme of things, but I think overall it’s a bit too simplistic and nihilistic. Given that approximately 10-15% of men are “sub5” according to him, there’s probably a decent to large portion of these are likely self inflicted (e.g. obesity, not even close to “looksmaxxing,” etc.). It’s likely most men (probably 95% or so) can get themselves to the normie range barring some type of facial deformity or anything like that.

Like I’ve stated in the How attraction works and misconceptions, there exists a statistical framework in what someone finds attractive. Based on my high school appearance when I was significantly underweight (16-17 BMI) looking back in my memories I had maybe 1-2 women all 4 years that I would say were attracted to me just because. Once I gained a bunch of muscle in college and starting doing things where I could stand out in terms of sports and hobbies I garnered much more attraction from women. I don’t think it’s a surprise that most of the sub5 and normie Christian leaders in college groups all had girlfriends either contrary to popular belief. For myself the interest was there despite being in the solid “normie” range. If I randomly go out in public I pretty much get all normie looks from women according to WW videos.

Similar to my teaching assistant (TA) stories — even though I get mostly normie looks from women — once you get into a status/teaching position and engage everyone effectively you start to generate a lot more interest as PSALMs (power, status, athleticism, looks, money) and masculinity start to shine through more. Leadership, independence, assertiveness, etc.

This is the biggest flaw of the black pill IMO. Although (L)ooks is a large component of attraction, there are definitely other ways to induce attraction. For the black pill or at least most of the black pill creators, they would just give up if a woman isn’t initially attracted or categorize themselves into some sort of self defeating or nihilistic mindset once they’ve placed themselves there. This translates to defeated body language and is a self-reinforcing downward spiral.

Yes, not everyone is going to be interested unless you’re a Chad per se, but you’re not aiming to get everyone interested in you. You’re aiming for a subset of the population that can find you attractive. There’s a few cases where escaping the friend zone is possible, and those tend to have women see you in a new light because of a change in personality or exhibited masculinity. Statistically, your chances with the overall population of women increases as PSALMs and masculinity increases. Maybe it’s 1% of the population if you’re sub5 on the outset. But with putting on 20-30 pounds of muscle it jumps 5-10% to 6-11%. Style, skincare, good haircut, grooming, and all such things maybe adds some 3-5% to 9-17%. Then being athletic, having a good job, being a leader in Church, being charismatic, and all such things can increase the percentages more. Unless you’re “Chad” you’re probably not going to hit 30-50%+ rates, but even single digit rates are enough if you work on expanding your influence and social network especially within Christian circles.

You only marry 1 person, so you only need 1… but improving your situation to increase the percentages will help the vast majority of men that aren’t Chad. Even the supposed “sub5s.”

 

This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Black pill analysis

  1. professorGBFMtm says:

    ‘Yes, not everyone is going to be interested unless you’re a Chad per se, but you’re not aiming to get everyone interested in you.You’re aiming for a subset of the population that can find you attractive. ‘
    THIS parallels the biggest problem I see with the red&black pills,’everyone knows the TRUTHtm,BUT they ‘must’ pretend they don’t’ to fit-in into normie society!
    In other words after ROISSYinD.C became a HUGE hit&spawned the ROISSYsphere,everyone thought you could be a ‘hero’ or at least ‘PUAIDOL’ to the ‘masses’&even the so-called ‘elite'(rich corporate masters&politicians).
    Is that what happened to ROISSY?Or even GBFM&DAL’rock?
    The three of them we’re,are&always will be the face of the MANosphere(Especialy its golden age of 2010-’15)GBFMS ‘battles’with DAL’rock set the whole atmosphere for the later christianization of MOST of the MANosphere(I.E.the christian-MANosphere).ALL these are to some uncomfortable truths(BUT to us in-the-know the facts of the situation on-the-ground)
    conclusion?:I think the rise of blackpill has alot to do with some forgettin’ the golden-age MANosphere started out mainly as a atheist-secular movement that became christian largely through the strengths&efforts of guys like GBFM,DAL’,RAY,WINTERY KNIGHT,DEEPSTRENGTH,DETI,ANAKIN NICEGUY,CALDO,WILL.S&afew dozen more at least,that would take much time to write about fully!
    So thats it for my thoughts D.S.on ‘blackpill’.

  2. Oscar says:

    One of the most overlooked factors is that it’s easier than ever for a single young man to stand out from the crowd. A young man who puts on a bunch of muscle, keeps his body fat % in the mid teens, and builds a decent career will stand out from the crowd, simply because so few do any of that, much less all of it.

    “Yeah, but modern women aren’t worth the effort”, say the black pillers.

    Okay, let’s suppose that’s true. Suppose you get in shape, work a career, avoid debt, build wealth, and you still can’t attract a woman you actually want to marry.

    What have you lost? Either way, you’re stronger, healthier, and wealthier than you were before you started. Where’s the downside?

  3. Bardelys the Magnificent says:

    That’s the drum I’ve been beating. As a man, you have to do self-improvement, but you can’t do it just to get teh wimminz.

  4. @ Oscar

    1. One of the most overlooked factors is that it’s easier than ever for a single young man to stand out from the crowd. A young man who puts on a bunch of muscle, keeps his body fat % in the mid teens, and builds a decent career will stand out from the crowd, simply because so few do any of that, much less all of it.

    2. Okay, let’s suppose that’s true. Suppose you get in shape, work a career, avoid debt, build wealth, and you still can’t attract a woman you actually want to marry.

    What have you lost? Either way, you’re stronger, healthier, and wealthier than you were before you started. Where’s the downside?

    100% on both of these.

    Not to mention for Christian men we should be striving for excellence in all of those as we are to “do everything for the glory of God.”

    There’s just no excuse not to try your hardest and do your best.

  5. thedeti says:

    Agree with Oscar, DS and BtM, but….

    The downside is that you cannot fulfill God’s commandment to “be fruitful and multiply”. You cannot get a wife, you cannot have children, you cannot have (legitimate) sex. If you’re being obedient, you must live a celibate life.

    The other downside is that you realize everyone has lied to you and is lying to you, including the people in your church/worship “family”. You realize that even the people closest to you are lying to you.

    Perhaps this is God’s plan for some men’s lives. I’m sure it is.

  6. Oscar says:

    If the choice is between being strong, healthy, and wealthy without a woman, and being weak, unhealthy, and poor without a woman, then there is no downside in choosing to be strong, healthy, and wealthy.

  7. thedeti says:

    Oscar, the downside part is “without a woman”. Is it better to be strong, healthy and wealthy than weak, sick, and poor? Yes. Is it better to be weak, sick, and poor with a woman? No.

    But “without a woman” is still a downside for men, particularly given our imperative to “be fruitful and multiply”. You’re still having to live without something you want. You’re still having to learn to “not want” that which you previously wanted.

  8. Oscar says:

    Deti,

    “Without a woman” is only a downside if “with a woman” was available.

    I ran track in high school, even though I knew I had no chance of ever winning a track scholarship. A track scholarship was never in the cards for me, because I never had the talent for it.

    I still benefited from running track. I was in the top 10% of my basic training rotation because I ran track. Plus, I had a lot of fun training, competing, and just hanging out with my friends.

    Failing to win a track scholarship was not a downside for me, because it was never going to happen anyway.

  9. thedeti says:

    No, “without a woman” is a downside if you wanted a woman.

    You ran track in high school. Sure, a track scholarship wasn’t in the cards for you, but you probably wanted one and you would have taken one if you could have gotten one. The fact that one wasn’t available for you because you didn’t qualify didn’t make the lack of a track scholarship less a downside.

    I am an amateur actor and vocalist. I have benefited greatly from it, as it’s brought me enjoyment. I did so even though I had no chance of ever working professionally as an actor and singer. I didn’t, because, while I’m good, I’m not professional level good, nor do I have the looks for it. For a time I wanted to do it professionally, and considered it seriously, until it became clear to me I didn’t have what it take for it.

    That did not make the inability to gain a career in the performing arts less of a downside. It was and is a downside, because I wanted it. I had to learn how to be happy and satisfied with the other things in my life and the rewarding career I now have, and to be happy and satisfied with performing as a hobby.

    It was and is a downside, because it was something I wanted and could not attain, and I could not because I didn’t have what it takes to get it.

  10. Oscar says:

    My inability to earn a track scholarship was no more of a downside to me than my inability to flap my arms and fly, or breathe underwater. They’re all equally impossible, so they’re all equally not worth fretting over.

    There was no downside to me running track, even though I

  11. Oscar says:

    Crap. Not sure how I pushed the button.

    Anyway, there was no downside to me running track in high school, even though I lacked the talent to earn a college scholarship.

    Running track in high school made my life better in multiple ways. It made my life worse in zero ways. Therefore, there was no downside.

    Likewise, getting stronger, healthier, and wealthier will make a man’s life better in multiple ways. It will make his life worse in zero ways. Therefore, there is no downside.

    If he didn’t have a woman before, and he doesn’t have a woman after, then he’s no worse off in the woman department. But, he’s better off in the strength, health, and wealth departments.

    All upside, no downside.

  12. thedeti says:

    all you did was say the same thing you did before without responding to my point. The point was that you had wanted a track scholarship and would have taken one if you had qualified. So you had to learn to live without something you would have wanted and would have been nice to have had. The downside is it was something you had wanted but can’t have.

    So it is with women- the downside is that for increasing numbers of men, women and marriage and families will be things they wanted but can’t have. So it is a downside. Yes, he’s stronger, healthier, and wealthier, but he still doesn’t have something he wanted. That’s the downside. And that was the point you didn’t respond to.

  13. @ deti

    The US does have better opportunities with being able to get wives when there are “no options.” Foreign brides. Although there’s the obvious horror stories as well it has worked for some that generate no interest among women in the West.

    That is one of the ways that WW mentions in his video for sub5 and normies as an option. One of my friends did it and is happily married (so far at least).

    I’m still a bit skeptical of the majority of men who have supposedly done all of these things and are still not generating any interest at all from women though. Usually there’s something up with certain social skills or certain things they’re doing that are turn offs that are killing attraction.

  14. Oscar says:

    The point was that you had wanted a track scholarship and would have taken one if you had qualified. So you had to learn to live without something you would have wanted and would have been nice to have had. The downside is it was something you had wanted but can’t have.

    And that was the point you didn’t respond to.

    Yes, I did. My inability to earn a track scholarship was not a downside of running track.

    My inability to earn a track scholarship was a downside of my genetics (NOT of running track), which are immutable whether I ran track, or not, so there’s no point in fretting over them.

    There was no downside to me running track in high school.

    Likewise, there is no downside to getting strong, healthy, and wealthy.

    I can keep explaining that to you, but I can’t understand it for you.

  15. thedeti says:

    No, you didn’t. And again, you get snarky, passive aggressive, and condescending. That crap might fly with others, but you’re not getting it past me. I see that crap for what it is.

    Let’s agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

  16. thedeti says:

    Your snark, passive-aggressiveness, and condescension is your usual go to when you’re losing an argument, like you’ve done here. It wins you no points with me.

  17. Oscar says:

    It wins you no points with me.

    That’s heart breaking.

  18. someone else says:

    I think the important thing you missed here is that the goal isn’t to get married per se, but to get married to a woman who finds you sexually attractive and to be able to maintain that attraction. Sure, you only marry one woman (ideally), but if you’re a betabuxx it still feels like you’ve missed out on actually finding a girl who’s crazy about you (and not just the security you can provide).
    I’m also put off by the idea of using influence in the church to maximize you’re attraction, given there are so many stories of abuse.

  19. @ someone else

    I’m also put off by the idea of using influence in the church to maximize you’re attraction, given there are so many stories of abuse.

    I think this is the wrong frame of mind.

    Positions of status or authority naturally give more attraction but they are a side effect of wanting to serve God. This is why leadership positions in the Church have character qualifications (e.g. 1 Tim 3). The problem most of the time seems to be that those character qualifications are ignored by most Churches in favor of other factors like “this guy preaches good! We need him as our pastor.”

    Obviously, someone doing them for the fame and status to use them for authority should get kicked. The Hillsong pastor (Carl Lentz) who committed adultery and got fired was a walking red flag looking at all of the stuff he was doing in the years prior to that.

    I didn’t lead some Bible studies because I wanted to be more attractive but because I wanted to help others learn and grow. The fact that it could help me be more attractive to women was a bonus.

    No one would dispute that excellence also stimulates attraction and God commands all Christians to do it as well: “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” Both in Colossians 3 and 1 Cor 10.

    However, it is the nature of the positions of status or authority that need to be guarded more safely by those selecting people for those positions as they tend to attract people who want to use them unscrupulously.

  20. Pingback: The differences between sexual attraction and sexual arousal | Christianity and masculinity

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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