What is SMV? SMV is known as social market value or more commonly, sexual market value. It is the inherent value of a person, the crude 1-10 rating of where a person is in the social hierarchy. In the context of social market value, this encompasses friends, colleagues, contacts, acquaintances and etc – how many do you have? How well-connected are you? Can you use nepotism to get ahead or are you reliant purely on the whims of meritocracy? Sexual market value is the same thing, but within the context of your sexual attraction and viability for mate investment.

SMV is not concrete or even absolute per se, but it is rather dualistic within its nature as fundamentally it is both tangible and non-tangible.

You have perceptive social market value which is what people (including yourself) believe your SMV to be based upon their personal interactions with you (And with yourself, your own self-esteem and sense of validation), this is the illusory factor, the glazing to the substance of who you are and what you’re worth, these are things such as how you behave and how you carry yourself (carrying yourself as a concept is basically demeanour and self-control combined into one) perceptive social market value can lead people to think you’re a few points higher or a few points lower down the scale than you really are.

The absence of information aka mysteriousness can also force people to rationalise (or hamster) that you’re higher value than you are, causing them to fill in blanks about the substance of who you really are; such as believing you earn more money than you do, have more contacts than you actually have or are more sexually desired by the opposite gender than is truth.

Inversely, it can also have the opposite effect, it can lead people to think you are less desirable than you are by merit of your reluctance to disclose too much (the assumption you are ashamed of something hidden or somehow shifty), so should you be practicing mysteriousness, be it to raise attraction in women or to maintain your privacy from those whom you do not trust, be sure to prod those probing you for knowledge on your life into a direction which forces them to make positive assumptions about you rather than negative ones. This way you can manipulate the perception of your SMV to be a few points higher, rather than a few points lower – make your perceived social market value work for you, not against you – because it’s doing one or the other. This shit right here, this is the stuff of rumours and gossip.

Then there’s your actual social market value, this consists of tangible things that cannot be refuted such as your conventional physical attractiveness, your financial wealth and skill sets you possess (such as languages spoken, instruments played, martial arts known etc.) Actual social market value is easy to discern, you write a list out of every asset you own, every valuable skill you possess and everything that’s positive, esteemed or commodified about you by wider society. If what you have or can do is in demand or coveted as desirable by others, then it is inherently a high value possession or trait. If the element in question is not in demand or coveted then it does nothing for your value in wider society.

Group Dynamics

Once you have your place in a social group after the introductions have occurred and you have been analysed, tested, judged and given a position, your place within that group is then set in stone. However, with some difficulty, one can re-chisel parts of the initially ascribed judgement from the metaphorical stone.

One’s social status and pecking order within a specific group is in a state of incremental flux, actions which demonstrate high value increase the perception of you positively bit-by-bit, actions which demonstrate low value increase the perception of you negatively bit-by-bit. Try not to get confused with my usage of positive and negative.

Positive doesn’t correlate to nice and negative doesn’t correlate to nasty. If you do something negative, say, you ditch a member of the group when you’re out together because they’re disregarding you, then that negative action demonstrates high social market value “I won’t put up with your shit” whilst inversely, tolerating their anti-social transgression and even going as far to allow yourself to commit to this persons safety and getting them home safely when they give no fucks about you and are having the time of their life demonstrates low SMV “you’re more important than I am and therefore I’m going to sacrifice my time and happiness to make your life better.” It’s supplicative, subservient and does not elicit respect in anyone, neither women nor men, with a particular focus on women.

Women are more likely to exploit your weakness or “niceness” for their own gain if for any reason, out of feminist-fuelled ego and self-entitlement. If you aren’t a respectable man who will ravish a woman then what are you to her? A tool. A wallet. Logistical support. A babysitter, etc etc. When a woman doesn’t respect a man, he’s a not a man to her hence all this shit about “boys” and “men”, when a man isn’t respected by a woman, he’s either a tool to be exploited, or he’s baggage which is to be detested and shunned. Women are very superficial and judgemental of men based on their SMV, your physique, your wealth, your popularity, your fucking height… they’re discriminate creatures. These factors are all tangible things which increase both your social and sexual market value.

Back to the topic at hand, you can essentially be very high status in one group whilst of mild or even low status in another, this is due to whom the group is made up of and what they desire and expect, it’s about relativity, your SMV is affected in relevance by the competition and thus your SMV within a social circle is affected by the status of everybody else within the group. If the standards are low in the group and you’re at least average, then you’ll be perceived as having high SMV to that particular group. If in the other group the standards were exceptionally high and you’re average SMV, you’ll be perceived as having low SMV in that group. Like I said, it’s all relative. Going to the gym and getting ripped wouldn’t mean shit if 99% of men were ripped, it would be more of an obligation than it would be an advantage.

To exemplify what I mean about the perception of SMV, let’s use the variable of intellectualism as an example. In groups where say nobody has a university level degree and you yourself have one from a respectable field, to them you would seem smart/knowledgeable because in relation to them, stereotypically, you’ll know more random crap than they do. That’s not always the case, but for the sake of the example let’s say it is. To rebalance this perception you’d need to play dumb, for an extended period of time and then frame your initial “intelligence” as being the device of some “effort to impress” on your part. Keep up the pretence of stupidity for long enough and eventually, the group would accept you’re not all that smart. Whether being smart or stupid within that particular group is a good thing or not is subjective and based upon the needs and perceptions of the group, so simply put, this could increase your value in some circles whilst decrease it vastly in others.

This is how you “re-chisel” the initially inscribed perception of yourself, the old facet of yourself people were so convinced was smart, now with great effort, energy and time expenditure on your part can be changed to make them believe that in actual fact you’re not that smart. Remember you haven’t actually lost any intelligence, you’re just merely altering that social circles perception of what they think your intelligence is. Often one has to ask themselves a question in relation to this, is this social circle even worth expending all this energy on? Will the effort outweigh the reward? If the answer is no and a simple cost-benefit analysis returns higher cost than benefit then logic would suggest that you ditch said social circle for richer pastures, quite simply like in finance – the return is too low to return a yield worthy of investment. There’s such a thing as “knowing when to quit” or “cutting your losses.” You have to be willing to lose/quit to “come out on top” sometimes.

When a social circle does not work for you, but rather you for it, altering the perception of your SMV is something of an inane endeavour. The group likes what you bring so keeps you in the group eg: resources, but they don’t respect you for what you bring because of how you carry yourself EG: easily pushed around and manipulated. These are the toxic social circles which if you’ve been silly enough to find yourself in, you need to ditch. Now. Exit, fast.

Any stragglers from the group who want to remain in your orbit and facilitate one-on-one relationships with you are of course, welcome to do that, presuming you equally value that individual to some measurable extent. After all, it’s not personal to the individual in question (unless with that individual, it is) really you’re looking at the circle as a whole, looking out for your own interests and leaving the circle because it was not working for you, but you for it, and thus it was too psychologically unprofitable to redress the imbalance. If you are being socially exploited, respect yourself and make it stop. It is a fundamental building block to building confidence and ego. This includes your job. If your job is self-deprecating or demeaning, try to find one that offers you better working conditions. Letting a job suck up your soul just so you can get by is no life – it’s a hostage situation.

It’s easier to join new social circles and go for off-the-bat perception of high value than it is to contest the perception of your status in an already established circle, the old adage “first impressions count” rings a bell here! Our ancestors, they were wise people. Pre-liberalism the red-pill was called “common sense.”

Your time is precious and limited, you will not be young, in good health and fast learning forever. Things that are most difficult, arduous and challenging (EG: learning a language, getting fit at the gym etc) are best tackled at the youngest age possible when your brain is at its quickest, your hormones at their best ratios and your energy levels are at their highest. Relating this to SMV, if it will take too much energy to fix a bad reputation or otherwise fix a perception of low status within a group, don’t contest it, just forget it, you have better shit to do, such as improving yourself; rather than begging for validation and approval from one specific social circle.

Even when you are already a high value individual, not everyone will appreciate what you bring to the table, not everyone is attracted to the same things, this goes beyond merely women but counts for friendships and business contacts too. Some people have game breakers which turn out to be deal sealer’s for others, EG: being intelligent, diversity is ironic like that.

The guy/girl you know who is friends with everyone simply projects different images to different people, a social mirror, a chameleon – this creates a mirage of someone being alpha/desirable through similarity and shared interest, but really it’s a manifestation of insecurity and weakness, whilst the ability to be so deceiving is certainly beneficial to one’s survival from a Machiavellian perspective, the lack of congruence in identity and an overwhelming need to be validated by others screams insecurity. Unless this is targeted specifically to achieve an agenda, spontaneous needless manifestation of such behaviour is weak and ill-contrived. Don’t try to be everyone’s friend, it’s insecure and suspicious. Instead, you improve yourself so much so that your value is high and everyone is trying to be your friend instead.

The red pill goes along the premise that if you are high value, you will make friends, get laid, find more success and attain fulfillment, however what is high value to some is perceived as low value to others (because they feel threatened by those traits or are ignorant/arrogant to them) for example, keeping with the earlier example of intelligence, many people don’t like people who seem smart because they think you could undermine their power and on an emotional level you make them feel inferior to you, this is why they feel safer trusting an inferior and socialising with people who aren’t smart, your intelligence is seen as a threat via projection of their insecurity.

Likewise many people don’t like a person who’s an aesthetic 10/10 because they feel they can’t compete for mates in their presence, they envy the 10/10 persons beauty privilege and the dividends it pays off because it seems unfair and puts them at a tactical disadvantage in fulfilling their own mating strategy.

It’s not as black and white as “be high value and you will lead everywhere you go” but certainly at all costs one should pursue as much self-improvement as possible so that they can have their fingers in as many pies as possible. Diversify your portfolio of interests, spin many plates, have varying hobbies, fill up your time – and when one thing inevitably fails, and it will, your social market value will remain high because like a conglomerate corporation, your investments are diverse and many, not reliant on the niche of a single market. As we say in England “you should never have all your eggs in one basket” yes, you see, before all this liberal bullshit, the people of England came up with some fucking great proverbs which still hold true even today.