There is a good flow chart for your dating life made by a specific YouTuber which I found highly effective. It can be found by searching YouTube for "wheat waffles flow chart"
I mean, from what I can see, it covers the redpill PUA stuff and the regular advice. It's basically saying "if you want to date shallow women interested only in your appearance, do X; if you want to date short-term based on shared interests, do Y; if you want a long-term relationship, do Z" — where some of the things below those split-offs happen to converge back together, due to e.g. the economics of attention in marketplaces like online dating; and the fact that "women at nightclubs" aren't one coherent group with shared goals but actually several independent groups that different men might want to meet for different reasons.
Note that many of the paths lead to don't-date or travel to lower income areas--but note that while that might get you sex it's not very good for finding love. And note that there is only one path from normal looks/not neurotypical to a relationship--and that path doesn't make much sense.
There's also a definite error. Note that an ugly guy who brings himself up to normal with surgery doesn't go through the neurotypical question. That arrow should go back to the top.
The language itself reveals deeper structuring principles in terms of truths/untruths, from which the knowledge presented in the chart arises.
The problem isn't that it's ideology; the NYT is equally ideological (ironically I had a far more visceral negative response to the angle of the OP article than to the above chart). The problem isn't even necessarily that it's TRP/manosphere ideology, but that it's treated unreflexively.
The question that immediately comes to mind is "why are the only categories 'sub5', 'normie', and 'chad'? What grounding principles must I assume in order to decide which of these categories I'm a part of?" Same goes for the proposed actions: what worldview must I assume so that these action-words "make sense", are coherent?
I can't speak for everyone, but when I personally dig into these questions, the answers I arrive at don't align with the other ways I elect to live in the world. I'm not saying the chart is "wrong", but rather that it's not relevant, for me at least.
I stand corrected. However, the question "What grounding principles must I assume in order to decide which of these categories I'm a part of?" has criteria WW outlines in "40 Differences in Treatment Between a Sub5, Normie & Chad." The theory isn't extremely rigorous and well defined.
The point isn't whether the criteria are knowable or not, the point is whether one is aligned with them, in terms of views/faiths/beliefs about how to live one's life. Better to think of it as a lens, perspective, frame, etc. which is neither true nor false, but instead accepted or rejected. In other words, it's a moral question.
Slightly condescending virtue signalling allows you to pass information freely without the fear of being viewed as someone who is dead serious about that kind of charts (and probably frequents PUA-forums)
I don't understand what "slightly condescending virtue signalling" is and how it "allows you to pass information freely" and what the fear is regarding "being viewed as someone who is dead serious about that kind of charts" or what is wrong with someone who "frequents PUA-forums"
I'm so far removed from this stuff generally I didn't really understand anything in that sentence (lol)
