• Introduction

In my opinion TRPs descriptions of female nature have always sounded more like bitter ramblings and a very obvious lack of experience with women than like accurate descriptions of how women typically are.

I think it's only fair if we start this by quoting some TRP sources on female nature so if you have read the sidebar already you can skip this whole next part.

• Female nature according to TRP

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/3tcvz4/why_you_shouldnt_explain_female_nature_to_women/

Women are mentally handicapped as a factory setting upon birth to allow them to navigate the sexual market place to their advantage with optimized efficiency (no cognitive dissonance) while pursuing the female imperative. Nature has sabotaged their psyche with installments of inhibitory components and psychological defense mechanisms to fulfill a purpose.

The framework from which all female psychology is built within, is solipsism. A characteristic of this condition is what she feels, is. The mere existence of that feeling is justification of its validity along with the behavior to which it manifests itself. The second condition from which all else follows is self-inductance, or to reflexively resist external changes toward the current narrative of reality that her immediate feelings produce. A woman’s brain does this by activating a series of interconnected psychological defense mechanisms.

Women find it very difficult to conduct introspection because standing between themselves and reality, is a veil of fog, a cloud of emotion (the first installed inhibitory component). This emotive haze is the atmosphere that acts as a filter from which she perceives reality. Light is allowed through, but is bent and distorted, providing an incomplete image or an outright fabrication of what lies beyond.

This cloud of emotion has a fog generator; it is what we call, the ‘hamster’ (the second installed inhibitory component). The hamster is the instrument by which the veil of fog acquires its amorphous shape and opaqueness, a rationalization mechanism that incites and maintains the dissociation.

She re-frames the situation in a way that portrays herself as the victim of unknown circumstance and intentional wrong doing, justifying rebellion and ignorance, but most importantly, absolving her of all guilt. The idea behind this process is to retain the feelings of before, then redirect the blame

https://illimitablemen.com/2015/06/30/the-nature-of-women/

To understand women with at least some degree of competence, one must firstly understand Machiavellianism. Once they understand Machiavellianism, they must come to understand dissociation. After understanding dissociation, the next logical step is to understand dissociation’s relationship with rationalisation, for rationalisation is reason built upon fantasy. A hoax, but one that can only be identified as such once you have investigated its origin.

Most within the red pill community come to know of rationalisation before dissociation; I suspect many know not what dissociation is in spite of its relation to rationalisation. Without dissociation, the reality removing mechanism on which feminine solipsism is predicated, rationalisation lacks the conviction needed to be convincing. The most compelling of a woman’s performances thus requires dissociation to masquerade as truth. If she did not believe her lies, neither would you.

If womankind did not possess an infinite capacity for dissociation, the effectiveness of her manipulations would be greatly vitiated. Such a woman would be unable to leverage her sexuality into attaining commitment once she’d had more than a few partners. Her sexuality would be utilised and disposed of like something to be consumed, as once perceived a whore, she would become her sexuality and deemed to lack essence in absence of it.

A woman would get what she deserves, rather than what she wanted or needed if she could not dissociate. Luckily, nature has equipped women with an instinctual proclivity to dissociate.

Machiavellianism, dissociation and rationalisation lie at the root and core of female behaviour. Female manipulation is about as natural as much as it is instinctual.

The histrionic self-delusion inherent of women is an effective substitution for psychopathy if you need to get something done at any cost, but aren’t actually a psychopath. Man has always been baffled by how someone who feels great sympathy for others can seemingly, as if by choice, turn off such sympathy without a shred of guilt. This is a behavioural observation unique to women noted by many men in many places.

What they are observing is a woman dissociating in order to withdraw sympathy where she once felt it. Even after reading red pill material man does not completely understand this aspect of women, the moral and logical gymnastics native to womankind continues to baffle man because man is a creature of reason and morals more than he is pragmatism. For women, this is not so.

https://illimitablemen.com/2015/12/16/the-awalt-misconception/

AWALT does not claim that “all women are the same”, this is patently false, and is as such an absurd claim to make. Rather, AWALT presupposes that women are collectively governed by a set of underlying principles which drives their behaviour. It then alludes to the principles, as well as the behaviours which result from said principles whenever they become relevant in discussion.

For example, hypergamy, solipsism, Machiavellianism and immaturity are principles which make up the AWALT umbrella. Behaviours resulting from those principles would be branch swinging, blame shifting and emotional impulsiveness, among others.

AWALT broken down to the most basic level is simple acknowledgement of aspects relating to female nature, no more, no less.

https://np.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/160b5u/woman_the_most_responsible_teenager_in_the_house/

The nobler and more perfect a thing is, the later and slower is it in reaching maturity. Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight and twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is a reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling things to the most important.

Skip up to here

• Lack of supporting evidence

In conclusion TRP-"science" claims that female nature is made up of solipsism, Machiavellianism, dissociation, rationalization, living in the moment, difficulty to conduct introspection and immaturity.

As we all know TRP as a whole doesn't care about facts and never even bothered to do any research before relying on their feelings to come up with ideas about female nature, so let's do the opposite and take a look at what research has to say:

• Machiavellianism

http://teamvdf.free.fr/TER%20M1/Machiavellianism%20a%20synthesis%20of%20the%20evolutionary.pdf

Most studies of Machiavellianism that include male and female participants find gender differences. Generally, the distributions of Mach scores for male and female participants are broadly overlapping with the mean slightly lower for female participants (exceptions are cited below in Multiple strategies within the genders). More important, the correlations between Mach score and behavior in subsequent tests are usually stronger or different in male than in female participants (Allsopp et al., 1991; Brown & Guy, 1983; Dingler-Duhon & Brown, 1987; Domelsmith & Dietch, 1978; O'Conner & Simms, 1990; Rosenthal, 1978; Van Strien, Duikjers, & Van der Kamp, 1982). According to Christie and Geis (1968), "With but one or two exceptions, no studies have found predicted relationships between agreement with Machiavellianism and predicted or other behavior among female subjects, but these are almost invariably found among male subjects" (p. 963). Although the literature since 1968 does not warrant such a strong statement, several authors still conclude that the entire construct of Machiavellianism is more appropriate for men than for women (e.g., Brown & Guy, 1983; Rosenthal, 1978).

• Impulsiveness

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21219058

We analyzed 741 effect sizes from 277 studies, including psychometric and behavioral measures. Women were consistently more punishment sensitive (d = -0.33), but men did not show greater reward sensitivity (d = 0.01). Men showed significantly higher sensation seeking on questionnaire measures (d = 0.41) and on a behavioral risk-taking task (d = 0.36). Questionnaire measures of deficits in effortful control showed a very modest effect size in the male direction (d = 0.08). Sex differences were not found on delay discounting or executive function tasks.

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2017/08/17/testosterone-makes-men-more-impulsive

Aggression is not, however, the only behavioural trait that seems to differ between the sexes. Generally speaking, males are also more impulsive than females. And that, too, may be linked with testosterone levels — a link that Gideon Nave at the University of Pennsylvania and Amos Nadler at Western University in Ontario have recently been exploring.

• Introspectiveness

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0097840X.1985.9936755

Women, Jews, and certain Hispanic groups were higher on introspectiveness than other students

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101118123840.htm

The area of the brain active while resting (the "default mode network") is more active for women than men. "We are the first group to report sex differences in this network using fMRI," says Mendrek. "The more active resting female brain may explain their reported ability to multi-task and be more introspective than men"

• Living in the moment / lack of future orientation

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4827712/

Studies that measure future orientation more generically have tended to find that girls have a stronger future orientation as measured by a lower likelihood of fatalistic beliefs (8) and higher self-reports of motivation, time perspective, and planning

• Conclusion

TRP has quite clearly missed the mark on several core aspects of female nature, because -instead of basing those ideas on actual measurable gender differences- they based them on hurt feeling, bitter ramblings and cherry picked anecdotes instead; which simply isn't a good basis for any theory.