Joshe

It actually would be interesting to figure out what is the difference in Natasha's perspective where she's receptive to being approached so long as it meets her standards, and the other girls who aren't interested in that approach at all. Like, try to answer this question. I have intuitions about the difference, but not sure. I suspect Natasha is a bit on the wild side a little bit. Can't unpack what exactly that means at the moment, but it has to do with spontaneity and potentially a specific flavor of openness. Almost like she actually wants it happen or welcomes it because it's an opportunity to be excited/interested in something new. Just the first few things that popped into my head. See, this inquiry is gold because if you spend the time figuring this out, you enhance your models of women and therefore can see the patterns when you're out and about and you aren't stuck with a one-size-fits-all approach. Imagine being able to get a read on both and calibrating for what you think would work on them specifically.

Maybe it slots in under "naive" but to me, the biggest selection effect problem I see is it selects for women with low discernment. Like, if you are looking for a girlfriend, you don't want her to be dimwitted or unable to see what's going on. I was with a girl like that once and it was so frustrating to have to explain the most basic of things to her. She started calling me "daddy", and not in a fun sexy way, lol.

You could see those as data points. Collect a thousand and you're probably doing well. Or just theorize from macro surface behavior, up to you.

@Monster Energy, @NewKidOnTheBlock Chill bros. This question isn't bad at all. Shows humility and willingness to learn.

My boy's got that 20-year old dick.

I find rubbing one out brings me to my senses.

Used to play it on the jukebox all the time. And this one: Always gets the house rockin

😂

Lol, you're a fuckin trip bro. You and those pet roosters.

I think if you want women to flow abundantly, it matters at any age. And Randy never "developed". So the thing isn't to develop into Randy. It's to learn to be yourself and calibrate where necessary. You may never be cooler than Randy, but you don't need to be. Of course, you don't need a social circle to get a woman. You could pick one up at the dog park. There are plenty of women out there looking for men. You just have to put yourself around them and strike up convo at some point. Dog park isn't bad actually, especially if you have a boy dog trying to hump hers, lol. Good icebreaker.

Why not just put your effort into making friends at the clubs first? and once everyone likes you, you can walk in and never have to deal with that problem? Seems a lot easier. When a dude walks into a club, the most likely reason why he's there is because he's on the prowl, and everyone knows it. So, it's not simply that talking to people makes it look like you have friends which raises your status. It's more so that it shields you from that perception that you're an asshole on the prowl and trying to manipulate people. I think this is an important concept: "Psychological reactance The core idea is that people have a baseline motivation to protect their sense of behavioral freedom. When they perceive that freedom being threatened or eliminated — even by a well-intentioned suggestion — they experience an aversive arousal state (reactance) that motivates them to restore the freedom, often by doing the opposite of what's being pushed, or by wanting the forbidden thing more. The kid-and-veggies example is textbook. "Eat your broccoli" converts broccoli from a neutral option into a compliance demand, so refusing becomes the way to reassert autonomy. Serve the broccoli without commentary and the freedom-threat never registers, so there's nothing to push against. The food itself was never really the variable. The moment a woman detects that an interaction has an agenda — that she's being worked — the frame shifts from "conversation" to "compliance attempt," and reactance fires. Her attention goes from evaluating the guy to defending her autonomy against the extraction attempt. That's a losing position regardless of how polished the technique is, because the technique itself is the freedom threat." Natural socializing removes this barrier. When 10 other people feel safe around you, that's evidence she can too.

Nah. If you're the cool guy, then you're literally the cool guy who everyone likes. You know how Leo talks about "play"? Well, that's what it's like, except in a social group. But here, the "play" isn't designed to get laid. It's for fun. And when women and entire groups of people love being around you, romantic relationships flow easily from that. So, you can be a dork, but you still have to be interesting and put yourself out there. If it doesn't come very natural, that just means you have to calibrate more. A good example of this is Dexter Morgan. Awkward mf. Not the life of the party but interesting and socializes. Has women in his inner circle. Gets mad puss.

My baby beside me at the wheel. lol But yeah, there were guys like that in my group as well and even ones that weren't particularly attractive were getting good-looking girls. The "how" was obvious: because how fun/interesting they were. As an introvert, those guys kinda gave me permission to come out of my shell and have the courage to play around be goofy, and to my surprise, it worked.

Ahh yes!! Scarcity! There's actually something to that.

😂

I found the key to make women like you is to actually listen so you can engage them in ways they've never been engaged before. But since you gotta big dick, maybe that makes up for it? lol

lol, yeah. Horrible move. I was a teenager finally getting attention from girls and I couldn't contain it. But seriously, all the attention I was getting literally came from being friends with girls, not from my looks or some sly shit I was doing. I recommend putting yourself in the friend-zone intentionally and see what happens. Suspend your desire to have sex with them - don't even think about it.

Never thought about it like that, but that tracks perfectly. There was a period in my life when I was involved in a social situation very similar sounding to yours, and shortly after that ended, I wound up in a bad group. I was getting girls in both situations but the first was effortless and the latter was much darker. In fact, mostly what led to the destruction of the healthy social group was me cheating on a girl in it with 8 other girls and then bragging to another dude about my "accomplishments", lol. There was abundance, then there was struggle.

The friend zone is what you want! Dude, if other girls see other girls like you so well that they want to be your friend, that's a highly ideal situation. It's very likely you'll have girlfriends if you have girl friends. If you changed your tact to only get friend-zoned, that's a far better number games than 1000 approaches will produce because it keeps paying out without you having to do anything. Also, some of them will slowly build attraction for you. Because like Emerald keeps saying, this is how girls build real attraction - over time. I'm of the mind that if a girl is hanging out with you, she has attraction for you on some level. She's not blind to the fact that you're a man and she's a woman. She knows you're a man, and she knows you have a dick. And she knows the thought has crossed your mind. Yet it's interesting that she's hanging out with you regardless. lol. Patience.

So, two people with the same range of models and cognition can differ in their orientation to them. For example, person A could care about efficiency and utility and thus want to discard more, and person B could care about exploration and want to collect more. You're smuggling in a value judgement.

Of course I'm not yellow, lol. Seriously, I am not yellow and I don't claim to be because the idea of yellow is so flawed and absurd that I would not apply such a silly ass notion to myself. Also, it wasn't weird at all. I was actually generous in giving you a high quality line of contemplation you could go down. I was kind of hoping you'd spend 5-10 minutes on it to see if you could pick up on any error signals. I wasn't sure if you would, but then you showed you wouldn't, which is why I said I had higher hopes, because I did. Was just being honest, not trying to be condescending. Also, the fact that you and a few other SD folk here have placed me at green just reveals how bad SD is. Your definition of green includes that it cannot see what its mind is doing, which is the most absurd thing you could apply to me. As well as to assume that I lack the ability to form comprehensive perspectives and dive into them on a whim. And of course, the communities behavioral heuristics used to discern an individual's likely position on the spiral is one of the big issues. "Triggered", neuroticism, excitability, etc. are largely stable traits and say nothing about being multi-perspectival, biased, or blind to its own mind. Which you would know if had good models of trait psychology and pondered it for 10 seconds. I'll respect OP and save the SD talk for later. In the meantime, if you want to "transcend and include" SD, look into how trait psychology complicates it. Also, look into what emotional purpose SD serves for the small sliver of the population who cares about self-development (to get a good look at bias). Also, look into why with everything including green and below, SD is describing things you can see in the world at scale. But above green, it's pointing at an ideal and traits, then calling it the next stage when it's really a prediction based on the creator's biased preferences and lack of understanding trait psychology. And look into how SD isn't even a model, but a heuristic, and that tier 2 is an extrapolation from the tier 1 heuristic. Lastly, look into how traits themselves generate values/preferences and then get mistaken for values you arrived at via development. Talk later. FYI, I've never even had the thought that SD is unfair. My issue is that it's not accurate, not that stages exist. Although, what the ego does with those stages is quite repulsive to me. Maybe you picked up on that repulsion and mistook it as evidence for my spiral location.

Of course there’s no reasonable answer to that question. which is why there will be none. And that is the answer,

But say I did. Would that complicate anything? Because I’d put money that my models are more accurate than yours. And what if I could prove it? What I want to know is, what makes your systematizing different than mine?

the only reasonable answer is "emotionality" 😂😂😂