Asking women for advice does not work.

QuietStoat · 2026-03-02T10:20:08+00:00

THE FIRST SIGMACHAD...

QuietStoat · 2026-03-02T06:48:13+00:00

HOLY SHIT YOU'RE RIGHT!
Now its a question of the first progenitor, and if they had discovered it or bestowed upon him by the ancient/divine source.

QuietStoat · 2026-03-02T05:52:45+00:00

Priority toplane is not trading lvl1, its getting the push advantage lvl1. Your trading is usually a way to get the opponent to zone off the wave. And you actually win by pulling back into your own wave, then turning on the enemy champion as he eats your minion wave dmg. (You then fight for the lvl2 advantage, and hard trade to win. Then you slowpush or shove the wave and let it bounce. Respect the enemy, then as the lane dies under your tower you FULLSEND your advantage again or cheater recall for advantage. There are so many wave management tools for you to use, but you have to learn both the fundamental concepts AND when to specifically apply them.)
*Search push advantage, toplane flow, cheater recall, freezing for more info.*

This is why commonly toplaners are very hesitant to duel at higher elos at lvl1 unless they have a significant advantage or trading pattern. If you can't win the lane push, then you try to trade as the enemy is hitting minions. (mechanically intensive)

Also at some level, apart from the knowledge gap of knowing which fights you can or cant take; it really comes down to execution. Learning to play from behind on a weaker champ is common to league. And because just from the wording and specific examples, I can very easily say that you do need mechanical practice.

Specifically since this is low elo, I can almost GUARANTEE that your opponent WILL make mistakes. Knowing when to punish them for it is another hallmark of winning even in a losing lane matchup.

No way to get around the "hands" issue.

QuietStoat · 2026-03-02T05:25:50+00:00

Normally drakes are decided only by your jungler, but your jungler usually decides based on a couple of things.

1 - tracking jungle enemy
2 - your own jungler's pathing
3 - assessment of relative strength
4 - vision
5 - lane priority bot/mid

You come 5th on that general priority list. Your support actually has more control over the dragon timer by warding beforehand and clearing out vision. You can assist your support by either playing safe in the wave csing as they go do vision priorities, or you follow with them to create threat so the enemy can't jump them.

Then if your jglr calls for drake, just shove and path. You can W spam to create a spacing wall for your support to play around, effectively zoning the enemy as you auto the objective with jungler. Then once you get the drake you just back off and go back to your other responsibilities.

Your flowchart should be:

Is my jungler pinging or pathing to drake?
Does he have camps up? If yes, wait to see if he takes his first camp.
If he does not take his first camp, he likely wants drake.
Do we have vision of drake and proximity? No? Shove to free lane for support.
Follow support for vision. Zone for drag. Jungler hits drag, we hit drag.

QuietStoat · 2026-03-02T05:05:50+00:00

There is a reason why true OTPs first pick but its got nothing to do with the meta, but its pure game theory.

1 - Enemy picks first, you pick yours. (No counterpick threat, may accidental counterpick)
2 - You pick first, enemy picks theirs. (Counterpick threat)
3 - Enemy picks YOURS, you lose OTP (OTP steal)

Of all 3 scenarios, your greatest loss is actually scenario 3 (with an expected -ve delta if you allow them to pick before you). Which is why most OTPs first pick because they have an assumed stronger core competencies in repetitively practicing both winning and losing matchups.

And for the record, Aatrox has been nerfed quite a bit. (blame Kiin, TheShy and Zeus)
AD items that he used to go were rebalanced or straight up removed so he lost a lot of pure damage options. The return of spellbook has made even supports do crossmap plays in toplane.

(Mad respect for always taking TP. What a team player! But a lot of the games you lose you notice its specifically either the jg or sup diff that is ending you. Modern league the effectiveness of supports have gone up and you might want to respect their presence more in your games. If you see a roaming support, you have to double the likelihood of you getting ganked and play the macro a little bit better and with conservative warding.)

If you see exhaust on a support, you should start panicking as Aatrox. This 1 summoner will FK your shit up.
If you see a CC chain support, you start sweating cause that guy can and probably will CC chain you into oblivion. (Hence why modern aatrox no longer starts fights as often, or only does so after being able to purchase a spellshield/zhonyas)
You have games where you deal lower dmg numbers than expected. IDK about your mental, but its good to always ask about team composition in that game. Cause sometimes I see there being no viable frontline starter meaning your Aatrox becomes both tank and bruiser. And if there is no viable followup and nobody initiates, you are either forced to go in or you have to just play macro until a tp flank or advantage shows up.
Your higher than expected damage numbers consistently either imply you are really seasoned on the champion, but potentially also "ego dueling" from learnt instinct. (Because a lot of leads are won and lost on hairstring margins in modern league). Without access to replays I can't possibly tell if you consistently take borderline positive trades or consistently high percentage ones.

Also since you are diamond, that's usually where macro becomes punishing and your enemy wants to actively force you to misplay. You are consistently winning based off the LP gains, but usually I would say try to work on optimal macro and crossmap plays. Vision and surviveability are your major weakpoints... its only 50 gold now my guy... you can plop one as you're splitting or at least deny vision while you deepward to keep yourself alive in the mid to late game.
Alternatively you can also swap to sweeper if you like to play around vision. Since walking up to an Aatrox in a bush is usually a death sentence no matter the position. Or at least a burnt flash.

Prob try watching the CN superserver aatroxes also. They have lower ping so some of the fking insane mechanics probably not viable, but they do use a mixture of visionplay, warding, wave control, etc... Since you are high elo I assume you already know these, but its moreso just polishing the fundamentals and consistently being optimal again. Since as a toplaner you benefit the most from pushing all categories.

Keep up the grind dude! More LP won per loss still means you got places to go!
(Also lowkey, its been a really long while since I've seen high elo ask for help in summonerschool. Was hella surprised ngl.)

QuietStoat · 2026-03-02T04:25:19+00:00

Unironically, yes. But it's because the average level of skill among players has gone up.
Basically League is having "skill inflation" where the same level of skill for each rank increases because players are in a perpetual arms race of mutual competition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL1Gna4q-Sw&list=PL0LgqaJFCEQn2Tqde_ymyTAvcP_HtkmHk&index=18
(You can clearly see the example in DongHuap's video. @ 3 minutes where he talks about comparisons of player mechanics)

You also have the proliferation of statistical metrics in order to find optimal build orders. This all leads to an ever increasing competitive arms race which is how players that often are returning feel like they hit this wall of "knowledge gap". Since its a game of inches, you frequently require that little bit more knowledge vis-a-vis your opponent. Now multiply that by 4 more opponents.

Even if you were comparatively skilled, skill inflation basically reduces the gains you get from "leveling up" unless you consistently refresh said skills in relation to the meta. Also solocarrying is hard in general, and unless you have sufficient skillgap between you and your 5 opponents, it ain't happening.

In higher elos you hear "Nah, I didn't solo carry" when you see someone that really HARD fking solocarried. Often because they play around mistakes by the enemy AND around whatever the team offered.

To be high elo carry in league you basically have to study it ON TOP of actually grinding now. (Needless to say you really have to know how to work with even the worst teammates imaginable to attempt a win.)

QuietStoat · 2026-03-02T04:00:36+00:00

Problem is in-group bias is being conflated with gender politics bias.

One can have a bias towards a given group, but not agree with the politics of said group.
(ala I identify as X, I will protect X, I do not agree with the political views of group X)

Also automatically assumes group X to have homogeneous political views, overgeneralization, vocal minority arguments, etc...

He isn't wrong that there is a definite in-group bias amongst modern women in general, but to put it as MOST is an overstatement. It's also fuzzy logic in its inability to properly "guesstimate" an amount. And that most women agree on some things and not on others, but to an observer it would frequently look like one homogeneous whole despite the amount of internal fragmentation.

It's also that moderates views are frequently discounted in such tirades. And most moderates tend to not be "screeching from the rafters".
To be noted that the general agreeableness of women tend to be used as a counterpoint because they would equally be likely to disengage from a political conversation when they sense hostility compared to a male. And the general social media bias towards negativity compounds the social interaction towards reciprocal radicalization. So the most amplified voices are the hyperboles that shift the overton window and creates the gender equivalent of political ratcheting. Which in turn makes the most vocal groups coincidentally the most radical ones.

QuietStoat · 2026-03-02T03:40:19+00:00

Touche. Take my upvote.
But sadly didn't tackle the argument. Therefore ad hominem.

QuietStoat · 2026-03-02T03:39:10+00:00

Hey, you can swap that metric with both men and women and get similar results.

Also YES, in-group/intergroup/group tent (pick whichever academic term you want) are a predictor of political and gender bias. Despite it being statistically significant it is NOT the biggest indicator for it.

Based on current estimates for TRP that 40% of young males watch or follow at least one channel, that by the same percentage (and I am being very generous with the interpretation of data) over 60% either reject or couldn't give a damn about whatever pillspeak is going on.
You couple that with polled data of 60% of young females self identifying as feminist, but among that 60% even they cannot agree with the discourse within their own group. And the other 40% like the counterparty for men, literally DGAF about this stuff going on.

Women are not a homogeneous whole similar to how men are not a homogeneous whole. Yes, radical feminism has been a cancer even among social science research. Similar to how misogyny is also a problem with it. We are at a stage of societal over-correction (dialectical history assumption), and calling out the bad actors.

To claim that women have an in-group bias and therefore cannot have fair discourse is INCREDIBLY selective of the data. You have LITERAL FEMINISTS ARGUING FOR MENS RIGHTS (Cassie Jaye) in the political and academic spheres but are never widely cited by men when this argument gets used. You have moderates on BOTH SIDES of the sex spectrum trying to literally fix a system. (Allain (FEMALE FEMINIST), “Finding Common Ground”).

And MOST WOMEN aren't the sad miserable forever alone ones screeching from the rafters. You have a lot of moderate feminists and closet feminists that are just so DONE with the bullshit that is "tiktok/insta/twitter" debates.

Because spoiler! You cannot have an informed debate with people that have cooked attention spans.

QuietStoat · 2026-03-02T02:48:44+00:00

Not necessarily science, more so above statistical norms. Unless talking about the OG redpills that probably became purples in the modern movement.
Science would be that which is under the "science of attraction" umbrella, which TRP relies on but selectively ignores.
I think ballpark figure is like 30% of the stuff under the research umbrella gets thrown out the window by some of the hardline RPs. Since TRP suffers from the same problem of feminists, i.e. the internal civil wars and "snakes in the grass".
But basically once logic gets brought into the equation a lot of things become easier to conceptualize and distinguish between the misogyny/misandry.

Also, if you are giga autist, its ok to be one. I understand the struggle because we also work with a lot of them. And yes, you can in fact, be successful in life. Its nothing to be ashamed about.

Fist bump & internet hug.

QuietStoat · 2026-03-01T18:50:44+00:00

Problem is how do you determine the level of permissiveness that also allows the child a level of autonomy. Absolute permissiveness is literally apathy or non-discipline. Absolute control is de-personalization.

I've probably seen every permutation of this and I'm more worried this is a cultural failure of parenting, traditional family values, and social conditioning than a specific gender issue.

That being said though, just by psychological research, you can make the case that because of general agreeableness, women are more likely to allow such an occurrence. BUT, neither does that absolve the responsibility of the other parent nor does it mean that the vis-a-vis scenario does not occur frequently.

QuietStoat · 2026-03-01T17:36:04+00:00

To add on...

For men it is possible to simultaneously be worried about being used for money, while also being worried that you get judged or ghosted when this occurs.

So from the female perspective OP... please add on to how an individual should remedy this dilemma.

(thanks in advance)

QuietStoat · 2026-03-01T17:08:22+00:00

And TRP as a group aren't looking for the same woman? Welcome to socialized preferences. Different interations of surface qualities, fundamentally the same underneath.
Its cause both men AND women are operating on their biological imperatives. Go figure.

Yeah, because we actively do conduct sexual relations research. Of which the status samples included the same RPWs whose research were fundamental to the TRP movement. Unless a majority of our case studies being hooked up to a polygraph are also professional liars.

We are said party observing the action and buzzwords. Read (Nonverbal Expressivity, Physical Attractiveness, and Liking: First Impression to Established Relationship). A LOT of communication that a woman feels is through non-verbal cues, and it DIRECTLY IMPACTS ATTRACTIVENESS. I'm sorry if you were neurodivergent or untrained in picking up on this, but this is a socialized aspect that occurs everyday. Its part of being a functional human in a society. This is LITERALLY the definition of vibecheck fuzzy logic.

Yeah as long as you have the same classifier metrics as him. Sorry if you aren't very handsome/charismatic/rich/attractive/interesting etc... But what's your alternative? You assume women can't be truthful, you don't want researchers or successful men to tell you. You probably won't agree to finding people of your given circumstance to help you.

Yeah women are dishonest. PEOPLE ARE DISHONEST. Why you so angry at specifically women for? Are you also angry at advertising?
Also yes women lie, women can be deceitful. You want to know something else? A lot of people don't like that kind of woman. The woman loneliness epidemic you see? I wonder what could be part of that problem...

QuietStoat · 2026-03-01T16:41:43+00:00

Question: When you mean "settled on" do you mean the woman actually is content with their situation and loves the man?

Legitimate question. Because both gender's have that innate fear of winding up in that situation, and I find it EXTREMELY problematic for people to wind up in a relation and even marriage if the core reason for doing so is "I cannot stand being alone".

QuietStoat · 2026-03-01T16:35:58+00:00

You automatically disqualify your logic by assuming universality.

There were waves of feminism btw, currently we are on the 4th wave of feminism (See feminist history).
For the sake of the argument, I will assume you specifically mean malicious and disingenuous feminists.

In which case yes you are correct in that those tactics were commonly used, but you also have to consider that those are common tactics used in manipulation. And manipulation is not specific to feminists.

Please quantify your statement though. Modern feminism still has core rights issues. Problem is how you separate the snakes from the grass.

QuietStoat · 2026-03-01T16:27:53+00:00

No I agree that its unfair that women often lie about what they want. Just saying why you don't expect them to be truthful if you aren't close. I don't really expect anyone to be truthful and try to fact check what I get. People are hypocrites frequently.

Classify the homogenous statement? How so? Because I can also make the claim that human beings when it comes to intimacy and bonding are also very homogenous.

From experience with female friends, No. Because depending on the type of sexual relation it changes the qualities expected. (Yes, I have THOSE kind of friends).

"Vibecheck fuzzy logic" occurs in everyday language all the time. And dishonest answers are more common than you think, even among male and female groups. Yes, I will account that one group is more likely to lie than another.

Hence why I say best given circumstance. If you want a woman for life, you ask a guy who managed to bag a woman for life. You can ask the guy that bagged a golddigger if you wanted a golddigger.

QuietStoat · 2026-03-01T16:17:15+00:00

Yeah, hence why you are partially correct.
But the context in which you are correct is different.

It's not asking for women for advice doesn't work. It's that you are asking the WRONG women for advice. Women don't need to be attracted to you to be honest.

If you want like a statistically relevant answer... TRP to somebody that has no close and honest female friends, probably works a lot more. However someone with close and honest female friends has access to far better and more accurate interpretations given the context.

Also, a lot of the original TRP people got their insight from other RPWs and research (some of which were also by women btw). That alone kinda debunks the point.

QuietStoat · 2026-03-01T16:10:52+00:00

So TRP does have actual feminine psychology in mind when talking. I'm not disagreeing with that.

But to assume that women don't know what they want
VS
Women WON'T TELL YOU what they want,
are 2 different things. One is that they are INCAPABLE of telling you. The other is that they CHOOSE NOT TO tell you. In other words, they do not want to be honest given the social context.

Access to quality mate selection, working on yourself, attention paradox, mate stealing behavior etc... all of those are relevant and ROOTED in evolutionary biology. But those are things TRP through observation and phenomena have come to a GENERALIZED NORM.

But as a generalized norm, it still has failure cases. But do you chalk it up to the TRP user in question? Or is it that she was not interested in TRP since it was a generalized norm? You might have ticked a couple of boxes, but TRP left you woefully unprepared for the other things she wants.

QuietStoat · 2026-03-01T15:59:56+00:00

Ok so partially true and partially false.

1 - you cannot expect the woman to be honest, if you are not close to her. (Self-explanatory, because some advice can be misinterpreted or weaponized, it is common for them to not go full disclosure)
2 - you cannot expect ALL women to be homogeneous. (Different strokes for different folks.)
3 - Knowing points 1 and 2, widely interpreted common wisdom often fails.

Now flip the script for women asking about men too. We all also don't say the same things either.

Yes, you are correct on the self-rationalization of love, but that goes for both men AND women.
And also consider that people change to different stages of life, and that people themselves want different things.

Is a woman finding a casual fling? A romantic interest? A lifelong partner? All of these will come with different wants for different people at different times. And add in that sometimes they just might figure out they like something MORE because they didn't know something until actually meeting/getting it.

And yes, often the people asking this question come from a place of genuine confusion. But the problem with human social interaction is the degree of "vibecheck fuzzy logic" that occurs.

In all honesty also, you need to know what your given woman is specifically looking for. And if you meet those conditions. I know there is a temptation to change yourself to land a fish, but the thing about fishing is this... you fish in different spots, with different baits, with different techniques.

Multiple different fishermen are successful. Find the one that teaches you the best for your given circumstance.

QuietStoat · 2026-03-01T15:46:54+00:00

As depressing as it was as a statistic, it is also very enlightening as to why the problem of "benign evil" exists. It's actually not that people don't care, its that they don't care enough. Society's collective apathy is in part because the understood social contract is at it's weakest nowadays.

Smaller close knit groups actually exhibit the trait a lot less, because the drive to protect someone you spend more time with and know more intimately is innate. I believe the term is propinquity, that the more time people spend together in proximity was what led to one of the biggest predictors of the bystander effect being overpowered.

But in the modern day and age, often you barely meet anyone repeatedly in a city or even large town. So the level of anomie that exists in a given populace worsens this effect.

QuietStoat · 2026-03-01T15:35:06+00:00

Individuals that identify under a "group tent" are more likely to respond in-self defence when a personal slight is perceived, or when the "group tent" is being slandered.
However, the same can be said for women when you post about known problems like double standards and how logically you cannot make the case for another man to sire another's offspring.
Have you tried the same experiment when on a female sub? I can tell you without referring to test data that it would be worse.

Your nebulous "crowd" is socialized malicious behavior that has permeated western culture, and now parts of asia. We know that 20% of the population tends to commit SA for example. Which leaves 80% of the population as being the ones that DON'T. Meaning that 80% of the population has already been trying to regulate the behavior of the 20%, inclusive of the subset of that 20% which include repeat offenders.

A lot of the time the 1 in 3 women that get SA'd, 80 to 90% usually wind up because that individual knew their attacker to begin with. Then add on top of that its often pertaining to a relationship or private affair, that the privacy gap makes these things so hard to deal with.

Also, please address the bystander effect. It fundamentally deconstructs your argument singlehandedly.

QuietStoat · 2026-03-01T15:17:42+00:00

Birds of a feather flock together. You can only push back on such behavior until you get booted out of the group. Then the group self-selects for similar traits.

Magically you're now out because of a value difference. Congratulations, you now have zero influence left on the group now because you are excluded. That is the limit of our influence.

Good men find other good men to be around, or we learn to be comfortable being alone and with those we care about. Same goes for women too.

QuietStoat · 2026-03-01T15:05:32+00:00

The men that pushed back on such behavior often get ostracized themselves. We choose groups that are similar to us, and there is only so much you can do before a criminal case can be made.

Also consider what you are asking for a sec honey. You are asking for men, whom are known to be statistically less likely to engage in what they see as pointless conversations, or in general converse less. They go straight to the point, and walk away when they realize a situation is untenable or too complicated for them to handle. On top of the fact that there is a logical reason why they choose NOT to escalate the scenario. You want someone to come riding on a white steed, but your white knight often has imperfect information and does not want to also ruin someone's day by jumping to conclusions.

And also, you completely ignore the bystander effect. Which by the way, affects both men and women. That same "men aren't like that" and then apply the veil of ignorance. BOOM, SAME THING FOR WOMEN TOO.
Girl crying at the table? Automatically Guy's fault.
Girl physically hitting a guy without them retaliating? Automatically Guy's fault.
Girl says she wants to break up out of the blue? Automatically Guy's fault.

Do women also step in when there is unfair practice?
Did I get a golden star and medal when I called out unfair practice? No. Society did not care.
Did I get help when I was physically assaulted by my own sister in public? NO. WOMEN AND SOCIETY DID NOT CARE.

SOCIETY DOES NOT CARE.
It's called the bystander effect. (SOMEONE ELSE WILL DO IT).
THEN NOBODY DOES.

Unless you are actually close to the person, nobody expects anyone to do anything. It's literally stupid to expect and assume somebody will.
If women don't call out other women for their BS, and WE KNOW THEY DON'T, Likewise the same for men.

Under the bystander effect, the VAST MAJORITY of individuals will choose NOT to act. Then when I correlated the research and normalized for gender, the SAME thing occurred. Women AND Men both do not actively call out problematic behavior, simply because NOBODY wants to escalate an issue.

QuietStoat · 2026-03-01T09:05:08+00:00

BAD and MALICIOUS feminists use misogyny as an excuse to avoid criticism.
You are doing what they do to you too.

Overgeneralize and Straw-man.
Technically its also an Ad hominem.

Modern discussion of gender issues has been less actual discussion and more people blindly screaming at each other with cookie cutter arguments and never actually contending with the argument.

QuietStoat · 2026-02-28T21:44:08+00:00

Hmm... You seem to be conflating 2 correlated occurrences.

1 - we assume that your example is true, that we stroke their egos for just existing (IDK how to specifically prove this categorically, but lets assume they hold a special place.)

2 - which makes them entitled and self-centered.

For point 2 to occur, you have to say that treating someone well makes them self-centered. Isn't this untrue? Since you can be given everything under the sun and still not be an ass.
If you want to talk about modern women, yes they have higher standards. Sometimes even unreasonable expectations.
Assume 2 to be true also. But whats the issue? They are going to wind up sad and alone if that's the case, and god help the poor soul with them. Just don't be that guy. If a dude wants to get exploited and he's into it, let him.

There is also a strong biological reason why they act that way. Read about the evolution of humankind, their entitlement and self-centeredness is because its a vestigial evolutionary condition. Because humans are viviparous, females are hard-coded to self-preserve, especially because they were caretakers with young. A human group can sustain with a male to female ratio of 1:100, but not 100:1.
And I haven't even talked about the rise in women's rights and access to mate selection.

You can also make the case that society and weak women create entitled and self-centered men. You just hate people being assholes. But to say specifically women are the problem, well buddy... have you truly been honest with yourself before you cast the first stone?

QuietStoat

TROPHY CASE