Blackpill Anchor theory: The way that men and women think and process information is fundamentally different

NapoliPizzaPie

NapoliPizzaPie

Banned
-
Joined
Mar 25, 2021
Posts
240
Online
4d 1h 5m
Today I was trying to rationalize the way men and women perceive the world - I was reflecting on the discussions I've read on the Purple Pill Debate subreddit, discussions between men and women on the nature of sex and relationships. One thing's for sure - there is a profound disconnect between men and women in the way they analyze values - morality, justice, importance, "goodness", "badness", love, etc., and have come to a conclusion that I would like you guys to discuss. None of this is verified or tested, but it's a theory I came up with while I was reflecting on these discussions.

And this disconnect is not something that is necessarily irrational. Both men and women seem perfectly rational in their value judgments, but it's just that men and women use that rationality in vastly different ways.

I think that men have psychological "anchors", usually events that occur during adolescence / childhood that defines who the individual is at a deep psychological level - these "anchors" are a product of one's environment, culture, social relationships among peers, literature exposure, religious exposure, hedonistic restriction, etc., and these "anchors" remain permanently imbued in the male psyche, from whence all perceptions and value judgments stem from. These anchors are "deep psychiatric" principles which the male uses when he calculates a judgement on something. If I make judgment on something, it needs to be compatible with this anchor, otherwise I feel as though I am violating some deep principle of what it means to be me.

As an example, I may have been raised in a Libertarian working class family, gone to a Catholic grade school, and read 1984 by Orwell when I was in 4th grade. That will fundamentally anchor me with a worldview in which strong government, the collective over the individual, and autocracy are "evil" that need to be avoided. A worldview where religion is viewed as a good. Additionally, this may lead me to value individual liberty in terms of morality, a sympathy to laize faire economics, and an ascetic form of love, life, etc that values platonic relationships over hedonistic relationships. All of this stems from this Libertarian - Catholic "anchor" that resonates in my psyche.

One of the things which men do when they analyze the world is not only interpret the world through these anchors, but they will try to look deep into the psyche of other human beings and determine what their anchor is. Men will look at a purple haired waitress at Applebees and make a snap judgment about her values, her core convictions, and who she is as an individual. It may very well be possible that this purple-haired waitress is actually a TradCatholic wife who didn't have sex until marriage and attends Church every Sunday, but men will not care about the objective truth of that statement until it's proven to them. Why? The idea of purple hair violates any anchor which coincides with not having sex until marriage and attending Church every Sunday. Can you name a conservative religious group that will shame you for having sex but allow you to have purple hair? No such anchor likely exists.


Women do not have these anchors. For whatever reason, they just do not. A woman instead will look for her self interest and the interest of her peers even if the values are contradictory. For example, AOC every single f***ing day whines about straight white male privilege, yet she is in a relationship with a 6'2" white soy boy.




All of us get thoroughly offended by this image, we find it morally revolting. Why? Because it violates an anchor which she established. She established an anchor which emanates a worldview in which white men are oppressive and evil, and the idea that she would date someone who is white and oppressive violates whatever deep anchor she has.

But she has no anchor. She simply looks out for the best interest of herself and her peers. For her, it is true that straight white men are oppressive - but it doesn't mean she will turn down the self-benefit of a relationship with a straight white male. The contradictory value system is irrelevant for her - because there is no deep, psychiatric value anchor to be had from whence intrinsic values emanate.

Women will fuck around in college and then want a stable man to betabuxx, but us men get horribly revolted at that fact. Why? Because an anchor which is conducive to valuing a stable man for a serious long term relationship is not compatible with a purely erotic physical relationship. If as a man I value long term relationships, it would violate a deep principle of "who I am" to have one night stands. If I as a man value pumping and dumping, I will pump and dump and find betabuxxing a violation of a deep principle of "who I am." But for women, that doesn't matter. What is to my benefit or to my friends' benefit. And in college, it was to her benefit to have as much sex as possible with as much cute guys as possible. Now, as she's gotten older, it's no longer to her benefit to have short swings, its to her beneift to have a serious ltr.
 
Last edited:
TheUltimateMarkcel

TheUltimateMarkcel

"Ordo Inceleratis needs us."
Joined
Oct 17, 2020
Posts
1,043
Online
19d 50m
didn't read all, but makes a lot of sense brocel, high iq thread
 
R

ropecel64

Level 2 [ADHDcel Currycel]
-
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Posts
551
Online
3d 5h 35m
I agree women put their own self benefit over any values they agree with. Funnily enough these values are shallow, most women never critically analyze whatever political agenda they preach they just do so to virtue signal.

"I hate white men!" , proceeds to date a genetically superior dom 6'3 white male. If a male says he hates 'white people' or is a black nationalist and says 'brothas' should date 'sistas' , guess what he will stick to his own people if i doesn't violate his moral compass.

While a female feminist will date anything she sees in her own benefit.

It seems to me women follow trends, while males are the opposite.
 
NapoliPizzaPie

NapoliPizzaPie

Banned
-
Joined
Mar 25, 2021
Posts
240
Online
4d 1h 5m
I agree women put their own self benefit over any values they agree with. Funnily enough these values are shallow, most women never critically analyze whatever political agenda they preach they just do so to virtue signal.

"I hate white men!" , proceeds to date a genetically superior dom 6'3 white male. If a male says he hates 'white people' or is a black nationalist and says 'brothas' should date 'sistas' , guess what he will stick to his own people if i doesn't violate his moral compass.

While a female feminist will date anything she sees in her own benefit.

It seems to me women follow trends, while males are the opposite.
I think this is just it - there is nothing immoral from the perspective of a woman of believing white people are horrendously evil while being attracted to them sexually, because both positions are to the benefit of herself and her peers.

To her, yes, of course white men are oppressors, but that's irrelevant to her sexual interest. A man can be desired and an oppressor to a woman. See Beauty and the Beast.

For men, many of us would hold that a belief in the tyranny of white men stems from some deep conviction about "how we feel", and to date a white man, therefore, would be a huge contradiction in "who we are" as a person. We would feel it incredibly immoral. "An anchor". We develop these deep psychological convictions during adolescence and it remains with us forever. If we were racist as teenagers, chances are we will be racist forever, at least at some deep level even if we cover it up with platitudes and politeness.

Women don't have these "deep convictions" or "anchors" about "who they are", because they process and analyze information quite differently.
 
Last edited:
R

ropecel64

Level 2 [ADHDcel Currycel]
-
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Posts
551
Online
3d 5h 35m
I think this is just it - there is nothing immoral from the perspective of a woman of believing white people are horrendously evil while being attracted to them sexually, because both positions are to the benefit of herself and her peers.

To her, yes, of course white men are oppressors, but that's irrelevant to her sexual interest. A man can be desired and an oppressor to a woman. See Beauty and the Beast.

For men, many of us would hold that a belief in the tyranny of white men stems from some deep conviction about "how we feel", and to date a white man, therefore, would be a huge contradiction in "who we are" as a person. We would feel it incredibly immoral.

Women don't have these "deep convictions" about "who they are", because they process and analyze information quite differently.
I have seen many ethnic women, who are the typical feminist whore, but strangely, have fetishes for 'colonizers' as ethnic femoid whores like to call white normies and chads. Women do not have strong moral compasses like men do, and work much differently to how men works.

The couple you posted as an example is the pinnacle of evil and ignorance, but to a women she doesn't see it as morally wrong. Tbh I need to do further research this on because I have seen this when I have argued with noodlewhores that having a preference for white males is morally wrong as it excludes aisan males and demonises them and only fetishized themself, so if they want to consider themselves as allies to aisans then they shouldn't be dating white men, but to them its fine to be a noodlewhore and to be proud being aisan but go and fuck a white 6'2 soyboy.

Tbh this is a high iq post, women process everything differently
 
A

Advorsor

Kebab Mentalcel with some hope
★★
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Posts
111
Online
10d 5h 5m
What if women's psychological anchor is rooted on their emotions, instead of what they learnt, unlike us creating anchors from knowledge and philosophy? Wouldn't this hypothesis explain their fickle nature in everything? Acting on emotions and feeling good is the unconscious version of Machiavellianism, is it not? Both try to maximize their own gains with doing anything all the while keeping themselves out from the mess they create. Only difference is unconscious version can't create elaborate plans like Machiavellianism.

I think it makes sense. Because women look out for anything and everything to make themselves feel good, their anchor isn't rooted in one place like men but wherever their emotions take them. Also women are treated differently compared to men, even in childhood. More whimsical, but based on truths of life itself; drip feeding them on how to make their lives as easy as possible from childhood with teaching taking care of children and home. Fit to their nature, look after things and exert less physical effort to be taken care of.

All the while men were let free to play to their hearts content, because they won't be able to do so after a point. Men are expected to grow up and take care of others with self sacrifice. The growth period for men is longer, because to create worth is harder than to heed to your instinctual way of living. This extra growth men have is the reason why the anchors are created in the first place, you need to hold a consistent idea about life itself to be able to free yourself from ongoing calculations and observations on how to act.

Please look at this stark difference and tell me how men and women can process information in same ways. This is the basic thinking and observation most people miss, and create false truths to calm their minds, linked to each other with doublethink. To avoid cognitive dissonance either one must lie to themselves all the time about how correct they are or wake up and smell the ashes of their burnt minds and build it up from ground up again with more truth than before. Latter one is hard, so most people are content with lying to themselves and others.

This difference in growth, when coupled with the biological differences is the reason women and men think, process information and act different in all facets of life.
 
NorthernWind

NorthernWind

Recruit
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Posts
454
Online
13d 15h 5m
If a man say he doesn't like certain types of women ( radical feminists, fatties, the ugly ones ) he means, it is what it is. He doesn't lying. He really doesn't like RadFems, fatties, the ugly ones. When a woman says she doesn't like agressive and dominant men and is more into 'nice' ones it's usually just virtue signalling ( exception proves the rule ).
 
Last edited:
osman27

osman27

Officer
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 8, 2020
Posts
960
Online
16d 10h 57m
I wish I was high IQ
 
Gyros_Pretcel

Gyros_Pretcel

19th c. Church of Hamlossus high priest contender
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Posts
8,988
Online
250d 3h 23m
All of us get thoroughly offended by this image, we find it morally revolting. Why? Because it violates an anchor which she established. She established an anchor which emanates a worldview in which white men are oppressive and evil, and the idea that she would date someone who is white and oppressive violates whatever deep anchor she has.
Bad example with AOC. You seem unfamilar with the political theory. "ThE leFt hAtes WhIte mEn"

Well to be fair it's kinda their own fault wording it like that on the surface level. At the same time they becry non racist JQers for the same rhetoric generalization. I assume it has to do with concessions to liberalism. Can't get tge radlib feminazis on board with class theory alone.
 
Last edited:
NapoliPizzaPie

NapoliPizzaPie

Banned
-
Joined
Mar 25, 2021
Posts
240
Online
4d 1h 5m
Literally autism. Hasn't spent a minute reading any related political theory. Stopped reading there. "ThE leFt hAtes WhIte mEn"

Well to be fair it's kinda their own fault wording it like that on the surface level. At
Read more carefully then bucko. How does the idea "white men are oppressive" equal "the left hates white men"? Perhaps I should've made it clear. "evil" as in "the system of white people", not "individual white people"

For the left, white men are oppressive, even if there is no intent behind it. It's allegedly a system that is designed to benefit only white men and keep minority ethnic groups in a lower social-economic caste - i.e., "white supremacy" (emphasis on the quotes).

And I would say that while perhaps leftist ideology in of itself doesn't "hate white men", it's incredibly obvious that a large portion of leftists do actually hate white men and use their ideology to justify their bigotry. Otherwise they wouldn't make shit like this:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBluYsydAVc

Also, critical race theory can suck my dick.
What if women's psychological anchor is rooted on their emotions, instead of what they learnt, unlike us creating anchors from knowledge and philosophy? Wouldn't this hypothesis explain their fickle nature in everything? Acting on emotions and feeling good is the unconscious version of Machiavellianism, is it not? Both try to maximize their own gains with doing anything all the while keeping themselves out from the mess they create. Only difference is unconscious version can't create elaborate plans like Machiavellianism.

I think it makes sense. Because women look out for anything and everything to make themselves feel good, their anchor isn't rooted in one place like men but wherever their emotions take them. Also women are treated differently compared to men, even in childhood. More whimsical, but based on truths of life itself; drip feeding them on how to make their lives as easy as possible from childhood with teaching taking care of children and home. Fit to their nature, look after things and exert less physical effort to be taken care of.

All the while men were let free to play to their hearts content, because they won't be able to do so after a point. Men are expected to grow up and take care of others with self sacrifice. The growth period for men is longer, because to create worth is harder than to heed to your instinctual way of living. This extra growth men have is the reason why the anchors are created in the first place, you need to hold a consistent idea about life itself to be able to free yourself from ongoing calculations and observations on how to act.

Please look at this stark difference and tell me how men and women can process information in same ways. This is the basic thinking and observation most people miss, and create false truths to calm their minds, linked to each other with doublethink. To avoid cognitive dissonance either one must lie to themselves all the time about how correct they are or wake up and smell the ashes of their burnt minds and build it up from ground up again with more truth than before. Latter one is hard, so most people are content with lying to themselves and others.

This difference in growth, when coupled with the biological differences is the reason women and men think, process information and act different in all facets of life.
Possibly
 
Last edited:
Gyros_Pretcel

Gyros_Pretcel

19th c. Church of Hamlossus high priest contender
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Posts
8,988
Online
250d 3h 23m
How does the idea "white men are oppressive" equal "the left hates white men"? Perhaps I should've made it clear. "evil" as in "the system of white people", not "individual white people"
Well it is, what it boils down to, if you think their theories are total bs. I haven't made this up, so don't ask me. Also it's the only explanation, why you would see a contradiction in being together with someone, just because of sharing said racial and sexual features with the elites (while still possibly opposing them).
For the left, white men are oppressive, even if there is no intent behind it. It's allegedly a system that is designed to benefit only white men and keep minority ethnic groups in a lower social-economic caste - i.e., "white supremacy" (emphasis on the quotes).
There is a subtle difference between being oppressive, just supporting the oppressors or not supporting the oppressors at all. Most white men fall in one of the two latter categories. It's mostly bullshit, that the status quo benefits them. That is maybe, what they and the radlibs get told by the elites. How oppressive can some average dude be and profit off it? Maybe its easier for him to get a job without immigrants and working wimen, but considering they often do lowely work and benefit the economy in the long term, you have to ask, is he really profiting by white supremacy? Not at all. His better economic standing is purely relative and the pivotal point is how the elites fare in distributing their own profits. Makes no sense to bash normal people, while the rich rake in the big buxx. The white supremacy is obviously just a smokescreen to gather popular support and not actually doing anything, but laying a propagandistic framework for this exploit.

I think your ideas of leftism are mostly based on a strawman.

I would say that while perhaps leftist ideology in of itself doesn't "hate white men", it's incredibly obvious that a large portion of leftists do actually hate white men and use their ideology to justify their bigotry.
So you agree with me? Why do you complain then jfl.

Seems mostly reasonable. I don't see the problem. "Otherwise they wouldn't make shit like this:" See I accurately extrapolated your sentiment.
 
Last edited:
The Abyss

The Abyss

Aspergerscel. Cope 'til you rope.
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Posts
12,317
Online
81d 18h 39m
They want all the "privileges" from both sides of the coin but none of the responsibility or burden.
 
M

Mordred2000

Greycel
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Posts
32
Online
2d 4h 58m
There is no objective morality, the only argument for an objective morality requires a god to declare it as objective and moral.

People are innately immoral because there is no such thing as morality. We simply define morals based on our own subjective values, to our own benefit.

You have three standard values; equality, freedom and stability. We each pick 2 (a major and a minor) and discard the third value.

Therefore, if your greatest value is freedom, anyone who has their strongest value defined as equality is your enemy and is therefore evil or bad or whatever. Each value is simply one that benefits you, otherwise, you would not value it.

All other interpretations are moot. People seek action for a reason, the greatest reason being survival and then dominance. Everyone is evil as is everyone is good, it is only the perspective that we attribute morality to.

Evil, greedy, powerful rich people and oppressed, virtuous poor people are the same, the only difference is the power the groups share and their portrayal. If having power is evil, then those that don't have power but want it are also evil.

The knight the fights a dragon to save the princess is not virtuous, he only seeks a reward at the risk of his life. If he revealed his intention of saving the princess because he wants to be king, or bang her or be rewarded in the glory of killing the dragon, they would see him just as evil as the dragon.

The perspective of morality is subjective, thus we can't define it as objective and frankly, it is then useless.