The Blue Pill Conformance Index (BPCI)

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.

6 thoughts on “The Blue Pill Conformance Index (BPCI)

  1. That was fun indeed. However, the income variable needs to be further developed. Having any type of income is not necessarily blue pill, we all need incomes to live in modern society.

    The point for me would be why is a man working for that income? To support himself or to support others? I am not sure there is a rigorous way to measure that. Can we find some proxy measures?

    Alternatively, the variable may kick in at a certain income or a certain wealth threshold (PPP adjusted by country) where, where making any additional money would be superflous?

    1. In other words BPCI is a proxy measure of percentage of your money/time/effort which is invested in stuff encouraged by the society but which doesn’t really make you intrinsically happy unless you compare yourself with people of lower BPCI.

    2. That’s a good point. We could rephrase it as “income spent on someone else”, e.g. on expensive dates, single-mother girlfriends, interest payments, etc. We could drop percentile scores because that approach would entail that the biggest simps are the biggest earners, which is not necessarily true. On the other hand, if this metric expresses the percentage of one’s income, we take socio-economic status out of the equation.

      There are two follow up problems, though, for which we may want to enlist another PhD student:

      1) What about people who overspend on simping? For instance, assume Joe Simp makes $2000 bucks a month, needs $1000 bucks for his own living expenses, yet spends $1500 on wooing single mothers, financed by payday loans. We want the BCPI to be below 1.0, so we can’t have exploding factors, which we can easily construct by reducing the income and raising the expenses.

      2) Taking the percentage of one’s income still overly disadvantages low socio-economic simps because they need to spend a larger percentage of their income on life’s necessities. I think we need some discounting factor that corrects for socio-economic status, e.g. a low-class simp who spends 25% of his income on single moms should get a bonus that may put him on equal footing with a middle-class simp who blows 40% on the same purpose.

  2. Some of the index components are western-specific. How does blue-pill conformity manifest in other cultures such as China or Russia? How did it manifest in Europe and USA before the world wars? I’m sure we could even find different strains of blue pill ideology within the current western culture.

    Swallowing mainstream narrative ie. disinterest for independent thought is an upstream characteristic of all forms of blue pill conformance across time and cultures. It all boils down to Socrates’ dictum that unexamined life is not worth living. What differentiates forms of BPC are the different prescriptions of various mainstream authorities on how to lead a good life.

    I suggest that BPCI should concern itself with downstream symptoms which are sub(culture)-specific. Of course this requires identifying clusters of subgroup ideologies. For a more general version of the BPCI we would have to prune all components that are sub(culture)-specific. For example, I am acquianted with fair share of men who would abhor entering in a relationship with a single mom and are skeptical of mass-immigration but are nonetheless total simps who take loans and spend them to impress gold-diggers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.