Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't put men and women on a pedestal. Nobody is immune to being evil or selfish. Sometimes women are secretly psycho. And they secretly crave a psycho man. Get it? Appearances aren't always true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enamdar
Of course any complaints that girls go for bad boys and jerks instantly labels one a nice guy beta males. To the extent that it is possible, I actually consider myself somewhat of an impartial outside observer. I was an omega jerk in JR and high school, and to an extent my whole psycho personality, worked and I had girls literally chasing me. A lot of it might have been self-delusion but some measures were objective. After that I was in nearly complete isolation in college. So I've never played the role of the bitter nice guy. I have NEVER done anything nice for a girl or anyone my entire life! So I think I have some claim to impartiality, and my position that my deep depression and heart anguish is purely on a metaphysical level.
I read a lot of PUA seduction Game literature. At first my logic was it pays to learn all tools of rhetoric, persuasion and oratory even if I intended to put it to different uses than PUA.
Anyway to put it at its simplest. In cavemen times women were just plaything rape slaves for the strongest ape. And that is what evolutionary psychology in chimpanzee and gorilla behavior proves. Now there might have been some brave women who defended their freedom to the death, but their selfish genes were lost to history. And the genes that all modern women have inherited is those who submit to the cruelest caveman with biggest club.
I don't know for me it is pretty hellish to live in a world where all men are sadists and all women are masochists.
According to PUA science male physical attractiveness barely matters at all, the only thing women find attractive is brute domination and sadism.
For the last year I've completely cut myself off from humanity. Who wants to live in a world of pure evil? Only evil is rewarded! Cruelty is the only virtue. What good is morality and ethics?
So I'd like an outside opinion do you feel that women are biologically programmed to reward cruelty, evil and domination?
At its core, PUA "science" draws on evolutionary theory. This may be misapplied but there are elemets in it that are interesting.
I wouldn't say they draw on evolution theory, rather evolutionary psychology, which at this juncture is pseudoscience. Misinterpreting pseuoscience, again, is bizarre. For any that may take issue with my statements, bring anything falsifiable in evo-psych to the table.
Quote:
Most of the sociology about what women "want" and "need" to be happy in a relationship makes an erroneous assumption that they will actually act on what will provide this. There are stronger motivatios at work such as status, peer approval and lust that over ride a logical approach every time. Its only in a controlled environment that such ideas are formulated and immediately upon entering the real world, all this is jettisoned.
This is why 2nd (and 3rd) marriages are so much less successful than the first.
I can't say I know much about the social...et al, ologies, but much of the above reminds me of media blitz found in whatever mag to make a sale.
Quote:
Most of the sociology about what women "want" and "need" to be happy in a relationship makes an erroneous assumption that they will actually act on what will provide this. There are stronger motivations at work such as status, peer approval and lust that over ride a logical approach every time. Its only in a controlled environment that such ideas are formulated and immediately upon entering the real world, all this is jettisoned.
This is why 2nd (and 3rd) marriages are so much less successful than the first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
I can't say I know much about the social...et al, ologies, but much of the above reminds me of media blitz found in whatever mag to make a sale.
You're correct about that. The press often overstates the value of the research and misinterprets it. However, at the same time, feminists are also often misusing it against men.
One thing they don't do is put it in the proper context like I do. Instead it is presented as "This is what men must do because women want it more than anything else." Like most similar advice that women give on this site it doesn't work because it really is an after thought in most relationship decisions.
I suppose that a good looking guy in a failing marriage might save it if he were willing to make these changes, but such men would rather take their chances than change who they really are. Besides, being themselves has worked so well up to now and if they end up divorced they know it will work for them again so why take the risk?
You're correct about that. The press often overstates the value of the research and misinterprets it. However, at the same time, feminists are also often misusing it against men.
One thing they don't do is put it in the proper context like I do. Instead it is presented as "This is what men must do because women want it more than anything else." Like most similar advice that women give on this site it doesn't work because it really is an after thought in most relationship decisions.
This is reminding me of a thread I'm participating in, in the education forum. User_id is noting the differences between peer review pre and post publication. He makes a good point. In the sciences, research/a paper is reviewed by a host of experts before it's published in whatever journal, which is a good thing, but he's noting that true peer review doesn't really happen until after publication because this is when other scientists can take the research and test it in their own labs. Something might look good on paper and we can talk about it all day, but until it's tried out we can't really know if there's funny business going on or if it's valid work. This is one of the processes that makes science so successful.
In the social et al -ologies this can't really happen and if it does, it seems like it would be more difficult and laborious. So, research surfaces, the media gets a hold of it...full stop. By the time another group publishes a contrary argument/objection to the work, the premise has already taken hold in the public arena. Then, keep in mind a lot of talking points aren't based on research, but opinions coming out of books from A.B.C. publisher with top ten sellers as the goal. None of this matters to either side of the argument.
This is reminding me of a thread I'm participating in, in the education forum. User_id is noting the differences between peer review pre and post publication. He makes a good point. In the sciences, research/a paper is reviewed by a host of experts before it's published in whatever journal, which is a good thing, but he's noting that true peer review doesn't really happen until after publication because this is when other scientists can take the research and test it in their own labs. Something might look good on paper and we can talk about it all day, but until it's tried out we can't really know if there's funny business going on or if it's valid work. This is one of the processes that makes science so successful.
In the social et al -ologies this can't really happen and if it does, it seems like it would be more difficult and laborious. So, research surfaces, the media gets a hold of it...full stop. By the time another group publishes a contrary argument/objection to the work, the premise has already taken hold in the public arena. Then, keep in mind a lot of talking points aren't based on research, but opinions coming out of books from A.B.C. publisher with top ten sellers as the goal. None of this matters to either side of the argument.
Hi Braunwyn,
Hell I was trained in research methods but even I know the pendulum has swung to applying science to the obvious. 20,000 year ago there was no peer review proving water quenched thirst. Science in this country reminds me of a priesthood. I took classes in sociology, taught in our universities, which taught as fact the blank slate theory of humanity. One course I took was called Sex, Marriage and Family which was in love with the conflict theory of marriage. I got an A. Did I mention I was a good feminist back then? I was the teachers pet who was very enthusiastic feminist. She loved me. I was taught we differ by genitals. Too bad they got it wrong because it cannot possibly all be learned. A worm cannot learn to be a vertebrate. There is no greater enemy than a former proselyte who knows the obscure bypass to the enemy flank. Given my religious up bringing, diet, cartel created text books and the boob tube, I would say I was raised on lies. So I am very comfotable with logic and reason over accepted orthodoxy.
Computer science is supposed to be a hard science. I thought how could it not when I was hard-wiring JP flip flops on a bread board? Booleen algebraic calculations don't matter in the boardroom where politics, sunk costs, hubris, justification, entrenchment, and lies dominate.
One premise of evo-psychology is our conscious mind conflicts with our sensual impulses because we have not adapted to the rapid changes. My taste for harmful sugar, only available in any quantity since the colonial empires, needs no peer review. It is thus a vetted concept.
So I know that we are not adapted perfectly to modern society and that little sardine sized part of our brain is not the only place we decide things. Its beyond all doubt as far as I can tell.
Hell I was trained in research methods but even I know the pendulum has swung to applying science to the obvious. 20,000 year ago there was no peer review proving water quenched thirst. Science in this country reminds me of a priesthood. I took classes in sociology, taught in our universities, which taught as fact the blank slate theory of humanity. One course I took was called Sex, Marriage and Family which was in love with the conflict theory of marriage. I got an A. Did I mention I was a good feminist back then? I was the teachers pet who was very enthusiastic feminist. She loved me. I was taught we differ by genitals. Too bad they got it wrong because it cannot possibly all be learned. A worm cannot learn to be a vertebrate. There is no greater enemy than a former proselyte who knows the obscure bypass to the enemy flank. Given my religious up bringing, diet, cartel created text books and the boob tube, I would say I was raised on lies. So I am very comfotable with logic and reason over accepted orthodoxy.
Computer science is supposed to be a hard science. I thought how could it not when I was hard-wiring JP flip flops on a bread board? Booleen algebraic calculations don't matter in the boardroom where politics, sunk costs, hubris, justification, entrenchment, and lies dominate.
One premise of evo-psychology is our conscious mind conflicts with our sensual impulses because we have not adapted to the rapid changes. My taste for harmful sugar, only available in any quantity since the colonial empires, needs no peer review. It is thus a vetted concept.
So I know that we are not adapted perfectly to modern society and that little sardine sized part of our brain is not the only place we decide things. Its beyond all doubt as far as I can tell.
Your post is confusing and I'm not sure which points to address. Tho, it ties in well with the problems faced in the social sciences imo. We all have our opinions, pov's, personal experiences, etc and they're all valid to us. OTOH, attempts at generalizing...superimposing our pov's onto others falls a bit short.
This is reminding me of a thread I'm participating in, in the education forum. User_id is noting the differences between peer review pre and post publication. He makes a good point. In the sciences, research/a paper is reviewed by a host of experts before it's published in whatever journal, which is a good thing, but he's noting that true peer review doesn't really happen until after publication because this is when other scientists can take the research and test it in their own labs. Something might look good on paper and we can talk about it all day, but until it's tried out we can't really know if there's funny business going on or if it's valid work. This is one of the processes that makes science so successful.
In the social et al -ologies this can't really happen and if it does, it seems like it would be more difficult and laborious. So, research surfaces, the media gets a hold of it...full stop. By the time another group publishes a contrary argument/objection to the work, the premise has already taken hold in the public arena. Then, keep in mind a lot of talking points aren't based on research, but opinions coming out of books from A.B.C. publisher with top ten sellers as the goal. None of this matters to either side of the argument.
The real problem is that people really don't know what will make them happy. Some people are never happy for long and they always blame their unhappiness on others.
An example is J, a woman I’ve known for nearly 20 years. She has been divorced twice and has had the ability to easily get in and out of a number of relationships.
Most of what I know about her is from what I’ve been told by her and observed but I also know one husband well and have discussed her situation with some others who have a different perspective.
When I first met her, she was married to husband #1. I only saw him once and he seemed a bit cold and distant. She told me that she divorced him because he didn’t want children. I didn’t know about her divorce until after I found out about her marriage to K, a man I knew but who wasn’t a close friend. At that time, I thought that I might have liked a chance but as often is the case, such things are kept a secret because she had her eye on one particular person and didn’t want any distractions.
K had a successful career in a job that paid OK but was not going to make them upper class. They had kids and I’m sure that he felt the pressure from her to earn more, so he moved to a job where he needed to work much longer hours and travel a lot. They got a better house and a cottage but about 5 years ago, she took me aside one evening while he was away and wanted to talk after the rest of our circle had left. We talked for more than 2 hours about how unhappy she was because he was “unsupportive”. I listened and occasionally gave her some suggestions. I kept her confidence about this even though I really wanted to tell K what she was having a problem with.
I saw them sporadically over the next several years. One day we met at a tournament and I invited her over to my hotel use the pool and hot tub. At that time she told me that their marriage was over. She’d got the house, a share in the cottage and $1300 a week in child support. I thought about what I thought about years earlier but was very busy at work and personally (My mother was very ill) so I thought that if I were to do anything about it, I’d have to wait until things got better.
Back at home some weeks later, she was at the club and afterwards, she jumped in my vehicle and asked me if I was interested in her. I couldn’t lie but I was worried that I could not give a relationship all that was needed. However I did my best under the circumstances. She came on to me quite forcefully. This was not my style – I’ve always wanted to get to know women first.
Anyhow, a couple of weeks went by and we dated several times. We talked a lot about why her relationships went sour and she told me she hated going to the cottage with the kids even though K would not be there. She seemed to revel in her ability to stick K with the childcare when it was to her advantage. Contrary to her assertion about him not being supportive, others told me that he was there for them more than her.
One day we were having coffee in an outdoor patio and a woman she knew approached. I was introduced but J seemed a bit irritated. I tried my best to be friendly but could tell that this woman wasn’t impressed with me.
The next time I arranged to meet with J, she was evasive about what we would do. It was apparent why when she gave me a short list of my shortcomings and said she didn’t want to date again. I asked her if she might reconsider. She seemed a bit embarrassed and guilty about this and the things she listed seemed a very flimsy and almost contrived. I suspect that her friend called her when she got home and it went something like “you must be kidding”. She would have impressed on her that she was making a mistake on the rebound, by not only getting into a relationship so soon after the split but by doing it with me.
The funny thing is my 9 of my 10 closest male friends told me that I was making the mistake. (The other said to never get involved with a recently divorced woman)
Unlike my previous experiences where I completely respected a woman’s decision, this time I felt that she had really got it wrong about me so I made an effort to see if I could change her mind. She didn’t make this easy and I got depressed and found myself doing what I had never done before – drinking more. This didn’t help and I finally realized that I had to break this off. Things then got better and I resolved to come to terms with this. I got interested in the relationship issue as a result.
Since then, she has found someone else and the more I see of her and her relationship with him, the more I realize that I was lucky. She has since bought her own cottage to compete for the affection of her kids! In many ways, she is not in what I would call a mature relationship. It appears to be almost high schoolish at times. I mentioned in a recent post about her getting jewellery at Valentines and how this seemed in her mind, to validate her new relationship.
Given the above, how can any social scientist glean any useful incite into someone’s needs, wants, desires and expectations?
Yet they take this and tell everyone how men need to be better at meeting women’s expectations!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with PTC, one man's ska*k is another man's treasure. I'm a woman, but you know what I mean.
