In my last post I jokingly introduced the Blue Pill Conformance Index (BPCI) as a measure of how much of a blue-pilled cuck you are. In hindsight, though, it is pretty obvious that this metric is just as legitimate as a ton of b.s. metrics I encountered at university. For the uninitiated, every field is full of jargon. There are a lot of strange terms and metrics that often seemingly serve no other point than to obscure how little content there is in a textbook or paper. Yet, once a metric is established, it is seen as a sign of the seriousness of a discipline. Just don’t peek behind the curtain!

Young and hopeful students are often in awe when they learn about metrics like consumer-price index (CPI) or the gross domestic product (GDP). To get an even greater air of authority, throw in a few Greek symbols and maybe a bit of basic math. When I was at university, I sometimes picked up a textbook from an entirely different discipline and flipped through it, which was always a lot of fun. I once had a rather amusing half an hour thanks to a Human Resources textbook that used calculus symbols to define how employee motivation and pay are related, expressing that the more you pay, the more motivated your employees are. I can’t remember what those metrics were called. Anyway, this was some of the biggest b.s. I’ve ever seen in print, and not just because the underlying assumption does not even hold, as any manager whose direct reports quit, despite a significant pay rise or a generous stock vesting schedule.

With that out of the way, we will now define a metric that is probably more plausible than most metrics in psychology and a good chunk of what you encounter in economics. The goal of our exercise is to define the Blue Pill Conformance Index (BPCI), which we intend to express how much of a cuck you are. Sorry, we’re engaging in an academic exercise, so we need to work on our language a little bit. Thus, let’s start with a first definition:

Def. 1: The Blue Pill Conformance Index (BCPI) is a metric that captures a male individual’s usefulness for society.

Let’s think of a few aspects of a good blue-piller. The better at blue-pilling a blue-piller is, the better off Daddy Government is because this means that more taxpayer money can be spent on vibrant enrichment or promoting sexual deviancy. Also, the more a blue-piller pays in taxes, the better it is. This leads to quite a few aspects of the blue-pill lifestyle already. In short, the ideal blue piller makes money and spends money, but it’s not quite that simple. Further investigation leads to

Has a salaried job

Has not been unemployed within the last few years

Has a college degree

Has student loans to pay off

Has a mortgage to pay off

Has credit card loans to pay off

Has a car loan to pay off

Want to compete with the Joneses

Spends a lot of money on dates

Happily pays for expensive vacations

Happy to play Captain-Save-a-Ho and marry a single mother

There is also a much vaguer metric that could be best described as “being committed to the system”. This is expressed, for instance, by believing the following:

Hard work is rewarded

We are all equal before the law

There is only one race, the human race

Diversity is our strength

Everybody who got into trouble for anything whatsoever only has himself to blame, assuming we’re talking about a white or Asian male (if a woman or a non-Asian ethnic minority is in trouble, either a man or society is to blame)

Social security is reliable

Democracy is the best political system ever

There are “just wars”

We can always rely on government

That’s quite a lot already, but if you put this in a college textbook, you’d get complaints from students and teachers because what you wrote is “so difficult”. Thus, we need to condense it a bit and focus on the essential parts, which I’d like to describe as:

has an income

needs to service debts

spends money on women who would otherwise cost the government money

swallows the mainstream narrative, i.e. fully buys into the system

Let’s stick to those four variables. We could say that they are binary, i.e. you get a 0 or a 1, depending on certain thresholds. The BPCI would thus be defined as a discrete variable ranging from 0 to 4, and the higher your score, the better your existence is for society.

At this point, we better follow some esteemed academics in their footsteps and massage the BCPI a little bit. Having a metric ranging from 0 to 4 just looks to arbitrary. Just look at how bizarre the following definition would be:

Def. 2: The Blue Pill Conformance Index (BCPI) is a metric that captures a male individual’s usefulness for society. A male individual gets assessed on a range of categories, i.e. income, debt, money spent on women, and acceptance of reality. For each category, an individual can be awarded 0 or 1 points. Refer to the text for the various threshold that lead to the award of a 0 or 1.

That just doesn’t look very nice. Instead, we should scale it so that the BCPI ranges from 0 to 1. We do this by scaling the various factors, i.e.

Def. 3 (formal): BCPI (Normalized) = BCPI * (1 / max(BCPI))

Explanation: The maximum BCPI is 4. With the algebraic manipulation above, we scale the range of numbers from 0 to 4 to 0 to 1. For instance, if your BCPI is 3, then your BCPI (Normalized) = 3 * (1 / 4) = 3/4 = 0.75.

We’ve now come up with a totally scientific measure of how much of a blue-pilled cuck someone is. Isn’t this awesome? Of course, the definition above is only useful for introductory textbooks. For an advanced course, we need to spruce this up a little bit, for instance by using Greek letters. I suggest Income (iota), Debt (delta), Money spent on women (omega), and mainstream adherence (alpha). The BCPI needs a Greek letter to, and the letter ‘beta’ is, obviously, the most fitting choice. Thus, we can now define the BPCI in an entirely academic way, such as:

Def. 4: The Blue Pill Conformance Index (BCPI), Beta, is a metric that captures a male individual’s usefulness for society. A male individual gets assessed on a range of categories, i.e. income (iota), debt (delta), money spent on women (omega), and acceptance of reality (alpha). For each category, an individual can be awarded 0 or 1 points. Refer to the text for the various threshold that lead to the award of a 0 or 1. Formally, the computation is as follows: Beta (Normalized) = Beta * (1 / (absolute value of iota + delta + omega + alpha).

We’re done, dudes! We’re social scientists now. As a next step, we need to get a PhD student to more formally define what the various categories mean. In our (naive) definition, we only use binary values, depending on whether a certain threshold has been reached, but there is really no limit to how complex this can get.

Currently, the BCPI can only assume the values 0.0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, and 1.00, which is hardly the best we can come up with. To improve upon this, we could use normal distributions for each value in order to determine percentile scores. For instance, if your tax contributions are in the 65th percentile, you get a 0.65, and so on. Percentiles have the property that the maximum value is 99, when using whole percentages. This captures that there is no perfect blue-piller. You can’t get a perfect 1.00, no matter how much you are willing to simp, which is great for the more aspirational blue-pillers who want to work towards well-defined quantifiable goals.

Similarly, we can get distributions for the remaining values. For ‘alpha’, however, we would probably need a survey on attitudes regarding mainstream opinions. Which viewpoints should we consider? How do we want to weigh them? How do we design a proper study that adequately reflects society? As you can see, that’s another PhD project right there!

Then there is the issue of the weighing of the various parts of the BCPI. You may want to argue that the amount of debt isn’t nearly as important for a good blue-piller as his willingness to simp for women, so we could discount delta by adding a coefficient < 1.0, and increase the value of ‘omega’ by adding a coefficient > 1.0. There are infinitely many possibilities and just as many possible justifications. That’s probably enough material for another two or three PhD students.

This concludes our exercise. Of course, the takeaway is that the closer to 1 your personal BCPI is, the more useful you are for gynocentric society. Clearly, a score of 0 is unattainable and, likely, also undesirable as we are all, to some extent, part of the system. Thus, the BCPI may also have a lesson for MGTOWs in store, namely that as much as you may want to go your own way, you are still part of society and thus, even the most alpha of alphas has some blue-pill aspects in his personality. I think the only way to get a 0 on the BCPI is to live off the grid and outside the system, which is of course theoretically possible, but infeasible in practice. Hardly anybody even considers it.

This blog depends on you. So, share your view and comment on this article (comment policy). Then, to ensure the survival of this blog, donate. If you haven’t bought Aaron’s books yet, then buy them, all of them. Lastly, if you want tailored and honest advice, book some one-on-one consultation sessions.

Share this: Reddit

Facebook

Twitter

WhatsApp

Pocket

LinkedIn

Email

