I very much appreciated Kevin Samuels’ summary of what makes a man a high value man. The description was concise and I agree with every point, at least in the broad outlines.
I might object to setting a specific monthly earnings floor that is a necessary prerequisite for entry, but there is no denying that the earnings have to be consistent over a period of many years. He sets a minimum at 3 years, but makes a good case that it should be closer to 5 years. If someone can sustain that income for a couple years past 3, then it is fairly clear to others that it’s sustainable for the long haul.
His point about a linkedin type description is also right-on. The career description should be precise and readily recognizable as to what you do, and more importantly, what you have to offer your clients (and who those clients might be).
I particularly admire how he organized his presentation that progresses in stages to the final points that are important in their own right, but also summarize every point before.
A high value man is a man who is accepted in a network of other high value men. It is a closed loop membership. Being a member in that group gives one access to opportunities through the other member’s contacts. However, qualification for acceptance is that you bring a similar portfolio of valuable contacts: people who you can call that may be of help to someone, and those people would answer the phone and actually help because of the already established relationship.
Having money alone does not qualify entry into such a network. I liked how he described it as a table where everyone has both money and contacts. There is no place at the table for a man that has only money without any high-quality contacts: he has nothing to offer beside money that is the least of the problems of the ones seeking help at this level. And someone who hoards his money for himself has no business calling himself high value.
The key summary of his point is that high value men are valuable to other people. He has something to offer to lots of other people, and in particular to other high value people. Not only does he offer it, he delivers it. A high value man has a niche of unique utility for others at the highest level.
Everything he said is congruent with my understanding since a very young age, but it is rare to hear is stated so matter-of-factly and rarer to have it presented in this order.
To be perfectly honest, this understanding has been a big source of frustration for my own life. I never aspired to attain a similar status as he describes. In fact, I find myself somehow repelled from that aspiration. After some thought, I realized the source of that frustration.
His key point is that to be a high value man, you first have to be a valuable man. You have to offer something of value to offer others, and to freely exchange with others when they request it. To be valuable necessarily means other people find you valuable to themselves or to people they know. They need to recognize what you offer both in the specifics of the details, and the reputation in the quality. No matter what one thinks of his innate value, the value that really counts is the value he delivers to his clientele, his market, or his community. If there is never any delivery, there can not be any value. If no one knows what you might deliver, there is only accidental circumstances that would even make it possible for you to deliver it.
I am much closer to a zero value man than a high value man. Value in this context is in the context that Kevin describes. I keep my talents secret to myself alone. I do not go out of my way to advertise what I can do. I also minimize my network in terms of seeking out others to do something for me.
In this sense, a zero value man does not mean a man without any income or wealth. It means instead that no one knows what they can reasonably expect if they were to ask. It may also mean that even if they get lucky in asking something I can do well, they have no clue as to whether I would be inclined to offer it.
In Kevin’s description, a high value man is one who advertises his value to the world with confidence and aggression. Again, the value comes from the public’s reciprocation of his marketing of himself.
I imagine an analogy of the old Superman comics of a Clark Kent that no one knows is hiding his Superman status. No one knows that he is the person to ask for help when they need it. Even though he secretly transitions to his super self when he perceives the situation requiring it, he is ultimately not a high value man because no one knows they can ask him in particular for such assistance. This is contrast to the Batman myth where even though Bruce Wayne is similarly hiding his secret identify, people at least know they can use the bat signal or bat phone to reach him. Superman just appears out of no where whenever he feels like it. In this sense, Superman is never going to be a high value man. This is an endearing quality for a fantasy character, but I believe would not admire such a creature if he actually existed in the real world. In fact, I think on balance, we would despise him.
In the real world, we operate through transactions. When we have a problem, we want to reach out to our contacts that we trust to recommend us to someone who can solve the problem, and that recommendation would honor our request at least in terms of actively negotiating the terms. When all is said and done, the transaction may not be as quick or as effective as what a superman would achieve, but it would be valuable because the requestor got his needs satisfied when he asked for it.
The public at large can not call up Superman to get them out of their bind even if their predicament is desperate enough to merit his effort. In the context of the high value man Kevin describes, Superman is neither confident nor aggressive in publicly broadcasting the marketing of his existence, what he can do, and how to reach him.
Obviously it is ridiculous to compare myself to Superman, but I too am very guarded in publicly disclosing what I think I have to offer. It is in this sense, I am a low value man, I don’t let anyone know what they can expect from me, either in terms of what I can do directly, or what I can do to help connect them to someone who might help. In my case, this is very deliberate even if causes subconscious frustration. I avoid being valuable on a scale that ends in high value.
I can imagine a therapist would diagnose me as lacking confidence and ambition (or aggression). This of course is absolutely correct, being almost tautological. I lack value to the public because I do not publicize my confidence or ambition.
Kevin’s business is about public image and as far as I can tell he has a high level of expertise in it and it appears he is successful at it. I think he offers lessons that are valuable to both men seeking that status, and women seeking the attention of those men who attain it.
On the topic of women’s aspirations, his channel is very refreshing in his direct honesty. His channel is also entertaining because of his women guests’ deafness to the truth that high value men operate in high value world of time-consuming relationships of not only his core business but of the network he belongs to, the network that allows him to continue to operate at his level. In that world, the high value man needs a woman of specific qualities that most modern women reject either immediately, or soon after marriage.
A high value man is high value because of his dependability to his clientele and his network. That is where the 5 year record is important, he is valuable because everyone is convinced he is going to remain valuable. Having a suitable wife partner would greatly facilitate his growing his network, especially when it comes to the social functions where he does not have to arrive alone or with an escort who barely knows his name, let alone the names of his associates.
I think he makes strong points that it is perfectly ok for a woman to not want to fill the role needed by high value men, but if that is the case, then the woman needs to accept that she does not qualify for the position. The inability of most modern women to accept this fact leads to endlessly entertaining videos.
Also in the video discussed at the start, he makes a good and sincere point that he is not saying that men can not be valuable unless they qualify as high value. A high value man, in his definition, is a very specific niche that naturally is self-limiting in terms of membership. Value is a overloaded term. In his discussion he is specifically zeroing in on the value to the public at large, and to the high-end of that public in particular.
In contrast, there is a more secretive value. This is value known to very few people, and those people may be very important to each other, while being perfectly invisible to the broader public. This is the analogy of the value of the Batman characters known only to a few people, who themselves keep the relationship secret.
There is also the privately secret value exhibited by the superman character, who I image would be perfectly happy if he never had to exercise his powers at all.
These kept-secret values by definition are outside the realm of public image specialists. The secrecy prevents the value that Kevin speaks to. High value is the very public reputation that lead to wealth, fame, attention, and access to exclusive high-value networks. There is no shame in not wanting that status, or not willing to put in the effort to get there. However, if that status is sought, the person must publicly market himself with confidence and aggression. He must also make his service offerings public and accessible to those who are able to negotiate for suitable terms. To get to the high value, he has to gain entry into a network of similarly high value men where that entry requires him to offer as much to them as they can offer to him. That offering is in a wealth of high-quality contacts with strong enough relationships to accept his referrals.
The high value man is a very publicly visible man, in particular to that portion of the public that consists of similarly high value individuals. He has to like, or at least tolerate, being in their presence. Similarly, his romantic partner needs to tolerate being his partner.
I think that summarizes his message. He has a successful channel because there is no end to men wanting that status, and of women wanting attention from those men who have it. Also, that market will never dry up because so few people are actually willing to do the work needed for either role.
I am one of the unwilling, even though there is a nagging regret of not being more widely recognized and of not being part of a symmetrical network where I can help others in some ways and they can help me in others. At the risk of discounting my laziness too much, I justify the unwillingness with the conviction that I simply do not belong there.
Just like he harbors no ill will to those who do not aspire to this level, I harbor none to those who do. Millenia of world history shows that mankind thrives with all kinds of niches, and with an exclusive membership in the niche of the high-value individuals.
I want to return to a point made earlier about the necessary criteria of consistency in earnings for at least 3 years, but preferably more than 5. In my current occupation, I am in my 5th year now. I may not qualify for his benchmark earnings, but I could be spending more than I do on improving my public appearance. More fundamentally, I don’t really qualify for the 5 year benchmark because I turned in my resignation at the end of the third year. Ever since then, I’ve been going month to month, with a now publicized announcement that I’m not going to stick around.
No matter how much I would be making, it is this publicization of my lack of commitment for the long haul that eliminates me for admission into any network, especially when I stated my desire is to zero my income indefinitely. Even if people know I might be useful for something, they know it not a good idea to ask it from someone who likely will turn it down, or won’t stick around to repeat the exercise for their future referrals. I’m not useful in that sense.
More fundamentally, it does not feel appropriate for me to be useful in that sense. I think the events of the past year with the epidemic and the government’s responses clarified the reasons. I can’t imagine what it must be like for high-value people to navigate the disruptions of the past year. Clearly, many of those come from small businesses that lost their usefulness to others, or lost their useful contacts to refer to others. It would not be comfortable to fall out from such heights.
There is another facet to the dilemma of the past year for high-value men in that they would be obligated to navigate through the chaos either through efforts to restore what they lost, or find a way to return favors to others now needing their help when the situation might be insolvable.
In short, the high value club has an inertia on the old normal. This inertia impedes the appropriate considerations of the needs of the entire population because the priority is to maintain high value status, and particularly where that relates to preserving the networks of contacts needed both to advance one’s own career and to qualify one to remain useful to others.
Clearly a lot of the lockdown policies of the government have upset the lower rungs of this high-value networks, but it has also strengthened the upper rungs of that group. Through the consequences of transfer of wealth from lower incomes to higher incomes, the high-value club has pruned its ranks in a way that raises the threshold of entry for newcomers. We will soon see a period of income stagnation with hyper-inflation. The 10K per month Kevin speaks of would have to rise a lot with fewer opportunities for newcomers to achieve that.
Perhaps I am being pessimistic, but in a few months time, people who fell out of once being in the high-value network will regret having that in their past. Those that remain will regret their efforts to protect their status will cause society to fail to make the changes needed that would have better served the future.