added section on baysean flirting

ChadNauseamHome/src/pages/dating/philosophy.mdx

@@ -4,9 +4,10 @@ import short_sides_long_top from "../../images/hair/short-sides-long-top.jpg";
 import buzzed_head from "../../images/hair/buzzed-head.jpg";
 import curtain_hairstyle_men from "../../images/hair/curtain-hairstyle-men.jpg";
 import muscle_target from "../../images/muscle-target.jpg";
+import inversion from "../../images/inversion.jpg";
 
 <Layout
-  subtitle="An analytical approach to dating"
+  subtitle="Aspiration to Ultimate Chadliness"
   description="I'm kind of neurotic and this is how I think about dating"
 >
 
@@ -24,28 +25,34 @@ So how do you get a lot of options? You just have to be attractive to the type o
 
 (Constant factors omitted. More elaboration on all these factors later. )
 
-Dating is a competition - everyone wants the best partner they can get, so you're inevitably going to be ranked against everyone else. Don't believe me? Consider that in the 1600s, everyone was malnourished and no one ever brushed their teeth, bathed, or got a professional haircut. Anyone from the 21st century would be a god among men just for having all their teeth. But since just about everyone in the present day has all their teeth, you don't get any points for it. That means the best way to think of these factors is in terms of percentiles. We'll call them _stats_, between 1 and 100. Your stats on their own won't determine your dating success, though. Your dating success depends on one more factor:
+Dating is a competition - everyone wants the best partner they can get, so you're inevitably going to be ranked against everyone else. Don't believe me? Consider that in the 1600s, everyone was malnourished and no one ever brushed their teeth, bathed, or got a professional haircut. Anyone from the 21st century would be a god among men just for having all their teeth. But since just about everyone in the present day has all their teeth, you don't get any points for it. That means the best way to think of these factors is in terms of percentiles. I like to think of them as _stats_, between 1 and 100. Your stats on their own won't determine your dating success, though. Your dating success depends on your ability to actually turn attractiveness into dates:
 
-<BlockMath math="\text{Dating success} = \text{Attractiveness} \times \text{Interactions with women}" />
+<BlockMath math="\text{Conversion} = \text{Interactions with women} \times \text{Flirting skills}" />
 
-If you never interact with women, you'll obviously never date one. If you're at 50s for each of those stats, and you have a decent number of interactions with women, you should not have a problem dating. If you're reading this blog, you probably are in desperate need of boosting at least one of them. Having a zero in any of those stats is like a dating death sentence (with social dominance probably being the least important).
+<BlockMath math="\text{Dating success} = \text{Attractiveness} \times \text{Conversion}" />
 
-So, which factors should you boost? Well, your priority should be whichever you're the lowest in. The good news is that there are strategies that boost multiple factors at once. These are where you're likely to get the most bang for your buck.
+Attractiveness is just how much of a catch you are. Conversion is your ability to convert attractiveness into dating success. So dating success is just <Im math="\text{Attractiveness} \times \text{Conversion}" />.
+
+If you never interact with women, you'll obviously never date one. If you're average for each of the base stats, and you have a decent number of interactions with women, and decent flirting skills, you should not have a problem dating. Having a zero in _any_ of these factors is basically a dating death sentence. (Although social dominance is probably the least important).
+
+So, which factors should you focus on improving? Well, your priority should be whichever you're the lowest in. The good news is that there are strategies that boost multiple factors at once. These are where you're likely to get the most bang for your buck.
 
 ## What do women want?
 
-Women are basically unified in wanting one thing: an "equal".
+I don't like to generalize, but women basically all want someone who's at least an "equal".
 
 <a href="https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1314678576432599040">
   <img src={attracted_to_equals} style={{ borderRadius: 15 }} />
 </a>
 
-Women generally don't want to be with anyone she thinks couldn't land someone else as "good" as her. This is one reason those "tricks" to make it seem like you have a lot of options are helpful. This is why confidence is attractive and insecurity is unattractive. One of my friends calls this her "Groucho Marx model of dating" - when she finds out someone is interested in her, she becomes less attracted to them, because she sees it an indication that they couldn't do any better. Aella points at this too - she wants someone who's drawn to her due to "unusual compatibility", effectively giving them a reason for being interested in her besides not being able to get anyone else "on her level".
+If a woman thinks a potential partner would have difficulty landing someone as "good" as her, she typically won't want to date/fuck them. This is one reason those "tricks" to make it seem like you have a lot of options are helpful. This is why confidence is attractive and insecurity is unattractive. One of my friends calls this her "Groucho Marx model of dating" - when she finds out someone is interested in her, she becomes less attracted to them, because she sees it an indication that they couldn't do any better. Aella points at this too - she wants someone who's drawn to her due to "unusual compatibility", effectively giving them a reason for being interested in her besides not being able to get anyone else "on her level".
 
 Not every woman is like this, and the ones who are have other criteria too, but this is an important factor you should be aware of.
 
 <SubscribeHook />
 
+# Conversion
+
 ## Interactions with women
 
 "Interaction" means more than "we made eye contact in the hallway". You actually have to have some form of conversation.
@@ -54,7 +61,7 @@ This is the easiest factor to boost, partially because it's the only one where y
 
 If you want to interact with a lot of women you have to go where the women are, even if that's not really where you want to spend your time.
 
-1.  If you're a college student, the #1 best thing you can do is join a frat. Unfortunately, if you're reading this, there's a good chance you wouldn't be let into any frat worth joining. (Sorry.)
+1.  If you're a college student, the #1 best thing you can do is join a frat. But many are uninterested or unable to join a frat, so if that describes you, keep reading.
 
 1.  The next best thing is a housing co-op program. They typically accept anyone who wants to join, and you'll live in a house with 15-30 other people. You probably shouldn't date anyone in your house, but your house will have parties or social events with other houses that you can go to. Moving into a co-op will come up a lot here, because it's beneficial across multiple categories.
 
@@ -85,6 +92,42 @@ If you want to interact with a lot of women you have to go where the women are,
 
 1.  Try the gym. If you go to the gym frequently enough, you'll start to notice other regulars and become friends with some. Many relationships start from meeting people in the gym. Don't hit on everyone you meet there, just try to be friendly and treat women the same way you'd treat men. If you make enough friends, probably one of them will be attracted to you. A later section will describe how to turn this into more than just a friendship.
 
+## Flirting
+
+Getting rejected sucks. Luckily, in the 21st century we have accumulated millennia of social technology that make rejection completely unnecessary. The mechanism by which the technology works goes against some of our cultural values, so it isn't often talked about. It's called flirting. I think of the flirting process as one of _escalating vulnerability_.
+
+You can determine the flirtiness of an action by computing a number I call the _flirt factor_. Let's say that if someone is attracted to you, there's a <Im math="90\%" /> chance they'll start a conversation with you. And if they aren't attracted to you, there's a <Im math="45\%" /> chance they'll start a conversation with you. To get the flirt factor, just divide these two numbers. <Im math="90\%/45\%=2"/>. This means the flirt factor of talking to you is <Im math="2"/>, or slightly flirty. Does that mean they're into you? Here's how to find out. Suppose they're about as attractive as you are, and you think there's <Im math="1:10"/> odds<Note>Also known as a <Im math="9\%"/> chance</Note> that someone who's about as attractive as you are would be interested in you. All you do is multiply those odds by the flirt factor! <Im math="1:10 \times 2 = 2:10 = 1:5" /> odds of them being into you. Nice!
+
+The reason so many nerds miss out on obvious flirting signals isn't because they're unaware, it's because their estimate for what percentage of people are attracted to them is way too low. If it's close to zero, all the flirting in the world won't be able to move the needle. Whenever you interact with a woman who's about the same level of attractiveness as you, you should estimate that there's at least <Im math="1:10"/> odds that she's into you. Think about it - aren't you interested in at least <Im math="1:10"/> people you meet that are as attractive as you? (If not, consider that your standards may be too high.)
+
+### Why we flirt
+
+If you find out someone is interested in you, you can make them feel bad by rudely rejecting them, or making fun of them behind their back, etc. This is just another way of saying "rejection sucks". So naturally, people avoid rejection. How? Plausible deniability. We've already established that starting a conversation with you has a flirt factor of 2. If someone is interested in you, they can dispatch a low-flirt-factor action like that to strategically raise your estimation of the odds they're into you, but not raise it high enough that you could reject them or hold it against them. Remember, _they_ think there's only <Im math="1:10"/> odds of _you_ being interested in _them_, so it's not like they're going to just go up and ask you out.
+
+The next step is for you to strike back. Preferably in the same conversation, you should dispatch your own low-flirt-factor action to raise _their_ estimation of _your_ interest. Unfortunately, women tend to be shy and unassertive, so if you want the game to continue you actually need to raise theirs higher than they raised yours. Ways to do this include asking them questions about themselves or playfully teasing them. I estimate those as both having flirt factors around 2-3. (We'll make a list of some actions and their associated flirt factors later.) Then, if they're interested, they'll strike back again, etc. If they're not, they'll pull back and you'll hopefully be able to recieve that signal too. Once you've both raised each others' estimations high enough, you can just start fucking or dating with no fear that the other person is going to brutally reject you.
+
+Flirting is an essential part of dating and if you refuse to do it you're basically fucked for life. If someone is flirting with you, and you're interested, you **_have_** to reciprocate if you want anything to happen. If you don't, she'll assume you're not interested and lose interest herself in a matter of days. (If you're unsure, a good strategy is to find a neurotypical female friend and ask her what she thinks.)
+
+If you've never flirted before, you should first do "social research". Nobody was born knowing how to flirt. They learned by watching movies and adults do it. (More on that later.) You can speedrun this by just watching the flirting scenes. I recommend first watching each scene on mute to pick up the body language, then again with sound on.
+
+1. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Doi3L8Tios">The Photograph</a>
+
+2.
+
+Working list of flirts:
+Looking at you at all
+Making eye contact with you for more than a second
+Starting conversations with you
+Saying your name a lot
+Saying hi when they see you
+Asking for your snapchat
+Playfully punching your arm
+palm reading
+
+TODO: talk about cultural remission
+
+# Attractiveness
+
 ## Hotness
 
 First, some theory. Dating is a market, so you need to know about supply and demand. This means you should ignore what any individual person tells you about their preferences, because that only tells you about the demand side. Imagine 50% of women dislike blue eyes, and 50% like them. Only 20% of Americans have blue eyes, so the supply for blue eyes doesn't come close to meeting the demand. Since attractiveness is relative, this means having blue eyes is an advantage.
@@ -139,6 +182,8 @@ Also, it's much easier to be perceived as fashionable if you're skinny. Clothes
 
 ## Status
 
+### The Theory of Status
+
 This really boils down to two things: **Women don't like dating guys who have no options**, and **people don't like being friends with people who have no friends**.
 
 Status is the only factors that has a self-reinforcing center-squeeze effect. It's the cause of the power-law distribution we see in dating success. Having no friends and no dating prospects is a stable equilibrium.
@@ -149,12 +194,30 @@ Women want their friends to be impressed by you. <Note>This is why the notion of
 
 But there's more to status than that. When you join a club, you'll probably be low-status within the club. But as you work your way up to an authority position, your status will raise with it and you'll have a much easier time dating others in the club. Someone who has a lot of friends, especially female friends, is higher status than someone who doesn't. (You can also date your friends' friends, and being a friend's friend gives you an automatic status boost. This is why women putting you in "the friendzone" is never a bad thing - they're still raising your status by being friends with you, and you can date their friends too.)
 
+### Being likable
+
+You don't only need to be friends with people who are similar to you. You can be friends with frat guys, gym rats, finance bros, rowers, breakdancers, coders, etc. If your interests overlap with someone's, that's great, but don't think it's somehow a prerequisite for friendship. I really like being friends with people who have different interests than me, because you can often get a new perspective on a side of the world you didn't know existed.
+
+One of my friends who's really into skiing was telling me the other day about a phenomenon called "temperature inversion", where warmer air is held above cooler air, trapping clouds at a much lower altitude than normal, often below the summit of some mountains. How cool is that?
+
+<img src={inversion} style={{ borderRadius: 15 }} />
+
+Your goal when meeting someone should be to get them talking about something they're interested in, and listen intently. (If you have difficulty staying "in the moment" while they talk, I find it can be helpful to focus on your breathing.) If you get someone talking about something they're interested in and are able to ask questions about it, 99% of the time they'll walk away thinking they just had a really good conversation.
+
+You can be warm and friendly right away.
+
+### Making friends
+
 Your main issue will be that people you meet will naturally stay in the "acquaintance" category rather than automatically moving into the "friends" category. I call this the "secondary location" problem. You might be friends with your outdoors-club friends when you're in outdoors-club, but you're nothing outside of that. Don't leave it to chance - you need a plan for turning "friends" into friends.
 
 The easiest solution is to organize regular dinner parties, game nights, videogame nights, bar crawls, etc. <Note>Bonus: having a lot of friends makes you higher-status, but when you're at an event _you organized_ (especially if it's in your house), you're automatically the highest-status person there. It's not healthy to constantly obsess over status, but it's worth having in mind.</Note> The key is for them to be _regular_. This makes it super easy to invite people of any sex without it feeling like a creepy overstep. If you host a dinner party every sunday, and your friends all bring a friend, and you run into someone in outdoors club who you like, you can just invite them without it being a big thing. If they come, you'll have broken the secondary-location barrier and be much closer to becoming genuine friends with them.
 
 ## Social Dominance
 
-TODO: talk about flirting and stuff.
+I got the term "Social dominance" from [social dominance theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_theory), but that's not really how I mean it. Social dominance is the ability to make everyone else think you're a confident, in-control, attractive, powerful person. (It's often said that _charisma_ is just power and warmth.) social dominance as the skill of "narrative control".
+
+### Narrative Control
+
+My theory is that humans don't come with genetically-determined goals. Instead, we look at the culture around us, see what it values, and try to achieve that. And like how a baby chick thinks the first thing it sees is its mother, we think the first cultural values we see are _our_ values. (Although these values can change as we change the cultures we're immersed in.) So you should look
 
 </Layout>