Stop letting woman use you

[Ulax]

39 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I think it's more about an introspective woman coming in and saying, "Actually, the thing you're doing doesn't work the way you think it works.... and that paradigm will eventually backfire."

Consider that there's a lot of comfort in logical analysis and having all of these frameworks about women, where a man can read a book about female psychology and feel assured that they understand everything they need to know.

And if a man who feels a bit insecure about dating learning such a framework can make him feel, "I now understand women better than they understand themselves. Therefore, I'll always have the upper hand."... then that cuts away some of the insecurity.

But the comfort shakes a bit when a woman comes on and says.... "Your framework is incorrect. Here's my 37 years of experience with what makes a man truly attractive that I've contemplated deeply on... and it's something that can't truly be faked with tactics."

Then, when that framework shakes, it create a lot of cognitive dissonance between opening up to greater truths about female attraction and holding tight to his comforting but backfiring framework.

And to quell that cognitive dissonance, he'll try different tactics to reset his certainty in the frameworks that comfort him, like...

• But (Emerald/Natasha/etc.) you're not like other women. You're special and different and highly developed. (And this tactic is a double-whammy as it redefines any reflections from women who intelligently challenge the framework as perspectives that don't really count because "they aren't actually women". And it also seeks to disarm the woman in question through flattery... and getting her to reframe her perspective as "Well, that is a good point. I'm not like other women. So, maybe my perspective doesn't count.")
• But Emerald, you're bi-sexual. So, you're not like other women. (Leo tried this one once. This basically has the same function as the first tactic of trying to set me into a different category that makes me and my perspective a special exception that can be disregarded... when I'm attracted to men 99 times out of 100.)
• You're just a woman. So, don't ask a fish how to catch it. (My paradigm is safe because no woman can validly challenge it.)
• Women are just too scared to see the truth of what they're actually attracted to. (This one creates an explanation for women pushing back that further reinforces the paradigm.)
• Well, at least he's trying. (Shifting focus away from the effectiveness of the tactic to the effort put into the tactic, which is completely different conversation)
• But I had success using these tactics before. (My point that I always try to make is, "Just because the tactics work for getting sex, doesn't mean you're actually becoming an attractive man." And seeing the successes can genuinely cause a man to lose sight that those topics are apples and oranges. But it can also be used as a strategy for quelling cognitive dissonance.
• Just plain being disrespectful to try to clown on the woman pushing back on his framework. (Being a clown in an attempt to make the woman get on his level... so that she discredits herself. This is the silliest one.)
• Ad hominem attacks to discredit the perspective of the woman (ie. "You're the biggest try-hard on this forum, so...")
• Etc.

But the main thing with each of these perspectives is that they're not very well thought through. And they're just ad hoc defenses used to try to maintain the comforting paradigm.

The most important thing is to recognize them for what they are and not take the content very seriously, as the content isn't the point. The point is to protect their paradigm.

So, regardless of whether someone says... "But you're so much more developed than other women." or "You're the biggest try-hard on the forum"... the meaning is the exact same...

"Please don't disturb my comforting paradigm. I don't want to see beyond it."

Impressive. So anyone who disagrees with you is just acting from cognitive dissonance. I'm gonna steal that  

[Ulax]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

I meant "better" from the female 'maximum attraction' perspective... and the 'becoming an admirable mature man' perspective.

A man who is authentic and grounded in himself gives off very good energy. And he comes across as the most attractive version of himself... which is inherently polarizing. And he earns a lot of respect in many areas of his life.

But it's polarizing in that, it will repel incompatible women... and attract compatible women.

The same is true in friendships... as authentic people are polarizing. They will repel most and attract only compatible people.

And in the case of the grounded man, compatible women will find him to be 10/10 attractive. And incompatible women simply won't be attracted.

Contrast that with a man who uses tactics...

He isn't as attractive and doesn't come across as an admirable man. And his life circumstances will reflect that.

But he also is NOT as polarizing. So, women who aren't as discerning will respond to the tactics.

And he will get more volume because he's not polarizing.

So, women who are willing to sleep with a guy who they're only 5/10 attracted to will be who the tactics work better with.

But as a woman who can sense when someone is grounded and authentic who requires 9/10 attraction to even think about connecting romantically with a man, tactics just feel like they're doing too much. And it makes me wonder about his level of sincerity.

 

Edit: I just came up with a good metaphor. Imagine that there are two brands of beer.

And one brand of beer is very very cheap and a bit watered down. And the other brand of beer is like a specialty IPA and it's more expensive.

Of course, the cheap and watered down beer is going to sell A LOT more than the specialty IPA.

But the specialty IPA is much better and better crafted. And people who really appreciate the taste of beer will seek it out.

I agree noticeable tactics seem try-hard. But subtly and good tactics go hand in hand.

[Olaf]

@Emerald the thing is this: imagine you are a billionaire; you think differently about the world, about yourself, about everything, therefor a billionaire in a body of a poor guy, will become rich in no time.

Now the same is with guys, if a guy has a strong identity of being very attractive, he thinks he is attractive, he operates in the world from the point of view that he is very attractive and everything relates to him being very attractive. What happens if he gets in a body of an "unattractive" guy, he would be successful with woman quite fast.

Now the problem with authenticity is this: if you ask a poor person to be authenic, he will remain poor, because that is who he is, he hasn't learned the skill to become rich. Same with an unattractive guy being authentic around woman: he will behave in unattractive ways by being authentic. If you "are" attractive or "are" rich, dropping all tactics won't matter, because your authentic self is already attractive and rich.

This idea that someone naturally is attractive by being authentic is like saying to a poor person: just be rich by being authentic, aka telling them that no work is required whatsoever: just talk and be authentic, thats all there is to it. 

That being said, it doesn't mean that authenticity is bad in its totality it is just not the end-all, be-all that social media promotes, like Julienhimself or other letting-go coaches that promote this online as the only thing.

[Ulax]

13 minutes ago, Olaf said:

@Emerald the thing is this: imagine you are a billionaire; you think differently about the world, about yourself, about everything, therefor a billionaire in a body of a poor guy, will become rich in no time.

Now the same is with guys, if a guy has a strong identity of being very attractive, he thinks he is attractive, he operates in the world from the point of view that he is very attractive and everything relates to him being very attractive. What happens if he gets in a body of an "unattractive" guy, he would be successful with woman quite fast.

Now the problem with authenticity is this: if you ask a poor person to be authenic, he will remain poor, because that is who he is, he hasn't learned the skill to become rich. Same with an unattractive guy being authentic around woman: he will behave in unattractive ways by being authentic. If you "are" attractive or "are" rich, dropping all tactics won't matter, because your authentic self is already attractive and rich.

This idea that someone naturally is attractive by being authentic is like saying to a poor person: just be rich by being authentic, aka telling them that no work is required whatsoever: just talk and be authentic, thats all there is to it. 

That being said, it doesn't mean that authenticity is bad in its totality it is just not the end-all, be-all that social media promotes, like Julienhimself or other letting-go coaches that promote this online as the only thing.

👏

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, Ulax said:

Impressive. So anyone who disagrees with you is just acting from cognitive dissonance. I'm gonna steal that  

I had forgotten to add this one to the list.

But strawmanning is also another tactic to quell cognitive dissonance by reframing the opposing perspective to one that's not as strong... and thus easier to discredit and disregard.

So, my perspective is, "There are many men who hold onto comforting frameworks about women. And when they hear perspectives that might cause doubt in those comforting perspectives, they will use tactics to quell their cognitive dissonance in order to maintain their attachment to those ideas."

And you used the tactic of strawmannirg to reframe my perspective as, "Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong."

So, you misrepresent my perspective and build a straw man of it. And then you smack down the straw man of my perspective in order to preserve your paradigms about women, attraction, and relationships. 

[Ulax]

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I had forgotten to add this one to the list.

But strawmanning is also another tactic to quell cognitive dissonance by reframing the opposing perspective to one that's not as strong... and thus easier to discredit and disregard.

So, my perspective is, "There are many men who hold onto comforting frameworks about women. And when they hear perspectives that might cause doubt in those comforting perspectives, they will use tactics to quell their cognitive dissonance in order to maintain their attachment to those ideas."

And you used the tactic of strawmannirg to reframe my perspective as, "Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong."

So, you misrepresent my perspective and build a straw man of it. And then you smack down the straw man of my perspective in order to preserve your paradigms about women, attraction, and relationships. 

You're right. When someone disagrees with my perspectives on women I actually get an alert on my phone that says "STRAWMAN TIME!", with a little strawman emoji "👨‍🌾". Then I try and concoct the most deadly strawman I can possibly think of, and post a reply 

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, Joshe said:

lol, true. It's so funny when you lay it out like that. I've seen this one used on you and Natasha and am just like 🤦‍♂️

Like, what kind of logic even is that? As if you don't have access to what it's like to be an actual woman just because your cognition is different. 

Just flip the scenario: a cognitively sophisticated man goes to a woman's dating forum and tells them they're theorizing too much or whatever, and the women say "but you're not like most men". It's like, "Yeah, ok, but I'm still a fucking man and I've been around men my whole life. I have direct, high quality access and the ability to understand the nature of a man, because I am one." And the women tell you you don't know wtf you're talking about and dismiss you because you're "different". The logic is absurd, unless I'm missing something.

I have tended to push back on that one by saying something similar...

"Imagine a male version of me, who is just as interested in consciousness work... and equally nerdy about these topics. Then ask yourself: Does that man experience attractions in a fundamentally different way from the average man?"

And of course, the answer is "no". 

And I've often used a similar example of... 

"Imagine there's a woman who's a very popular female dating expert who has a TON of influence over young women. And she's very un-attractive and un-appealing to most men... and clearly quite toxic.

But imagine that she has all the receipts. And she's got tons of men chasing after her and wanting to lock her down. And she's getting and turning down a bunch of marriage proposals from very insecure men.

And now, she's peddling her "tips and tricks"  to young women that will repel like 70% of men... which includes the best and most compatible men.

Then, part of her system says, "Never listen to a man about what he wants. You already know him better than he knows himself." And this creates a paradigm lock for any woman who listens to her, as no conflicting information can be let in from a man.

And then, she's so popular that like 30% of women start drinking her Koolaid... and start doing really un-attractive things. But it's audacious. So, the women who use these tactics do indeed get more men falling all over themselves.

Then, when a man says... actually those things are just repellant. Try a different strategy.

They're like, "What do you know? You're just a man!" or "Well, you're a special exception because you're an ultra-conscious man." or some other tactics borne from a desire to maintain this "expert's" POV.

Then, her model is a popular business model. And the majority of female dating coaches start working from her same script and frameworks.

Then, there's a "female loneliness crisis" because most of the men (the ones who are more discerning) got disgusted by these easy-to-spot behaviors... and avoided any woman who uses these tactics."

[Natasha Tori Maru]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

I think it's more about an introspective woman coming in and saying, "Actually, the thing you're doing doesn't work the way you think it works.... and that paradigm will eventually backfire."

Consider that there's a lot of comfort in logical analysis and having all of these frameworks about women, where a man can read a book about female psychology and feel assured that they understand everything they need to know.

And if a man who feels a bit insecure about dating learning such a framework can make him feel, "I now understand women better than they understand themselves. Therefore, I'll always have the upper hand."... then that cuts away some of the insecurity.

But the comfort shakes a bit when a woman comes on and says.... "Your framework is incorrect. Here's my 37 years of experience with what makes a man truly attractive that I've contemplated deeply on... and it's something that can't truly be faked with tactics."

Then, when that framework shakes, it create a lot of cognitive dissonance between opening up to greater truths about female attraction and holding tight to his comforting but backfiring framework.

And to quell that cognitive dissonance, he'll try different tactics to reset his certainty in the frameworks that comfort him, like...

• But (Emerald/Natasha/etc.) you're not like other women. You're special and different and highly developed. (And this tactic is a double-whammy as it redefines any reflections from women who intelligently challenge the framework as perspectives that don't really count because "they aren't actually women". And it also seeks to disarm the woman in question through flattery... and getting her to reframe her perspective as "Well, that is a good point. I'm not like other women. So, maybe my perspective doesn't count.")
• But Emerald, you're bi-sexual. So, you're not like other women. (Leo tried this one once. This basically has the same function as the first tactic of trying to set me into a different category that makes me and my perspective a special exception that can be disregarded... when I'm attracted to men 99 times out of 100.)
• You're just a woman. So, don't ask a fish how to catch it. (My paradigm is safe because no woman can validly challenge it.)
• Women are just too scared to see the truth of what they're actually attracted to. (This one creates an explanation for women pushing back that further reinforces the paradigm.)
• Well, at least he's trying. (Shifting focus away from the effectiveness of the tactic to the effort put into the tactic, which is completely different conversation)
• But I had success using these tactics before. (My point that I always try to make is, "Just because the tactics work for getting sex, doesn't mean you're actually becoming an attractive man." And seeing the successes can genuinely cause a man to lose sight that those topics are apples and oranges. But it can also be used as a strategy for quelling cognitive dissonance.
• Just plain being disrespectful to try to clown on the woman pushing back on his framework. (Being a clown in an attempt to make the woman get on his level... so that she discredits herself. This is the silliest one.)
• Ad hominem attacks to discredit the perspective of the woman (ie. "You're the biggest try-hard on this forum, so...")
• Etc.

But the main thing with each of these perspectives is that they're not very well thought through. And they're just ad hoc defenses used to try to maintain the comforting paradigm.

The most important thing is to recognize them for what they are and not take the content very seriously, as the content isn't the point. The point is to protect their paradigm.

So, regardless of whether someone says... "But you're so much more developed than other women." or "You're the biggest try-hard on the forum"... the meaning is the exact same...

"Please don't disturb my comforting paradigm. I don't want to see beyond it."

What could I say to falsify this? 

I ask because I can definelty agree with all of these explanations (especially the special snowflake point, the most common one used on me, which I think can be valid but is poor argumentation). But the model of behaviour here seems to say "anyone who disagrees, is further evidence for my theory". 

I get sketchy when I model is self sealing like this. How do you see a way out to an alternative that the model doesn't fit? 

[Emerald]

9 minutes ago, Ulax said:

You're right. When someone disagrees with my perspectives on women I actually get an alert on my phone that says "STRAWMAN TIME!", with a little strawman emoji "👨‍🌾". Then I try and concoct the most deadly strawman I can possibly think of, and post a reply 

You seem to be creating a strawman about what strawmanning is.

People who strawman don't usually consciously do it. It's usually an ad hoc emotional reaction to uncomfortable or challenging information... try to put the opposing argument in the "I don't need to listen to this" box.

[Ulax]

3 minutes ago, Emerald said:

You seem to be creating a strawman about what strawmanning is.

People who strawman don't usually consciously do it. It's usually an ad hoc emotional reaction to uncomfortable or challenging information... try to put the opposing argument in the "I don't need to listen to this" box.

I'm flattered you see me as creative with my arguments  

[Emerald]

49 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

What could I say to falsify this? 

I ask because I can definelty agree with all of these explanations (especially the special snowflake point, the most common one used on me, which I think can be valid but is poor argumentation). But the model of behaviour here seems to say "anyone who disagrees, is further evidence for my theory". 

I get sketchy when I model is self sealing like this. How do you see a way out to an alternative that the model doesn't fit? 

I tend to do a lot of observation to be sure that the things I'm saying are accurate to my own experience. So, they will be difficult to falsify because I'm not making them up out of thin air. I'm really experiencing attraction that way. And my arguments are directly tied to my lived-in direct experiences of being a woman who is attracted to men.

And I'm saying, "My experience of an attractive man has been like this. And I suspect that most women would report similar."

So, the first part of the statement is just true about what I've experienced, as it's been my subjective experience of what makes a man attractive... and unattractive. And I know that these tactics for "becoming an attractive man" tend to have the opposite effect on me.

So, that part is impossible to falsify without using cognitive dissonance tactics to discredit me and my perspective as "not a valid source of information" or "Not worthy of listening to".

Where I could be falsified is if a bunch of women said, "No. Actually, I prefer it when men use tactics. And it doesn't really matter if he actually has a firm grounding in himself or his authenticity." I just doubt that very many women would agree with that statement.

But that's where my speculation comes in... and women could definitely counter my argument if their subjective experiences of attraction towards men were fundamentally different from mine.

But it's important to bear in mind... my arguments are about the subjective female experience of attraction. So, men aren't really in a place to falsify them, as they lack the subjective experience of being a woman.

They do and will always have blind spots. And that's not the problem. The problem is lacking the humility to recognize these limitations... and shutting out any lived-in perspective that threatens their paradigm.

It's similar to how someone of a particular racial or ethnic group might have certain experiences of bigotry or discrimination. Then, a person of another racial or ethnic group who doesn't experience that kind of bigotry or discrimination says, "No you don't. You never experienced it that way."

The ability to falsify in this case, fully sits with the subjective experiencers of the experience... and not the people trying to understand it or invalidate it from an outside perspective. 

So, men can either choose to reject those perspective as "not worth listening to"... or choose to integrate those perspectives into his framework by recognizing that he has blindspots by virtue of simply not being a woman.

That's where he would need to suspend his attachment to his own frameworks and open up to the perspective, "Maybe I don't actually know."

This requires some humility, of course. And it means letting go of the comforting paradigm of certainty to open up to truths that exist outside of his scope of awareness.

But they can't really falsify my arguments about female attraction, as they have never been a woman and have never been attracted to a man as a woman. 

It's similar to how, if I started making claims about what a man is attracted to that only tell partial truths... or totally misrepresent their subjective experience of attraction altogether... they're probably going to push back on that.

And sometimes, I would think, "This guy may not understand himself very well." So, I'm going to take his perspective with a grain of salt. This happens all the time on this forum, when a guy might understand what sexually attracts him to a woman... but may not have a lot of self-knowledge what makes him fall in love with a woman. (There's another thread going on right now, where one person in particular strikes me as not really understanding the distinction between what he wants sexually and what works for him in a longterm romantic relationship. So, I may see him as an unreliable narrator and put a bit less weight in his understanding of his own subjective experiences)

But if a man seems to know himself well and has given a lot of thought to what he's attracted to and why, then I'm more likely to integrate his perspective into my own... as I will be able to sense that he's speaking directly about his subjective truth. And his subjective truth is not something that I can ever verify or falsify... as I've never been a man who's attracted to a woman.

So, I'm not even saying that all women's perspectives on what attracts them to men are equal in their level of self-knowledge. And with discernment, a man could choose to disregard those perspectives.

The issue comes when there are women who do have a lot of self-knowledge in this regard.... but the man doesn't allow himself to listen to or fairly evaluate the subjective experiences of women being presented to him, and he immediately shuts them down. And he blocks himself off to any subjective perspectives that could sew any seed of doubt in his comforting paradigm.

To go back to the discrimination and bigotry analogy... Let's imagine that there's a white person who has a comforting paradigm and they believe "Racism used to exist. But it doesn't exist anymore."

Then a non-white person openly shares their own lived-in subjective experiences of being on the receiving end of discrimination and bigotry.

And the white person can't take in their perspective without undermining their comforting paradigm. So, they seek to discredit and shut down the non-white person who opened up and shared their own subjective experiences. 

And they try to falsify it the non-white person's perspective on the matter... but they can't because that perspective is simply a sharing of what has been experienced. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Emerald

[Sugarcoat]

I feel people can be so focused on women compared to men paradigm that they forget that you, if your'e lets say introvert, can have more commonality with a introvert woman than a extrovert man. Just an example, biological sex isn't always main thing setting people apart. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Sugarcoat

[Rafael Thundercat]

@Olaf sometimes is just the trauma speaking. 

[Emerald]

36 minutes ago, Ulax said:

I'm flattered you see me as creative with my arguments  

It is indeed very creative.

Humans get VERY creative with their arguments when they're protecting their identity or worldview in the face of perspectives that could undermine them.

We'll often use arguments that we don't even believe in to protect the paradigms we're attached to.

But these creative arguments go by another name... logical fallacies. 

[Olaf]

@Sugarcoat I don't understand what this has to do with this context of this thread

[Sugarcoat]

3 minutes ago, Olaf said:

@Sugarcoat I don't understand what this has to do with this context of this thread

I skimmed through before I posted, read just a little and the thought was triggered. But I had that exact thought that it might seem too "out of context" in a way that would make someone react to it, so in that sense I am very well aware of the "context" here

So something has to be perfectly aligned with the literal topic of the thread for you to see any connection there? As if what I said has no relevance whatsoever lol

Edited 1 hour ago by Sugarcoat

[Olaf]

@Emerald I have never heard the term non-white person before, either black or dark skin, but non-white sounds a bit off I don't know, maybe its me

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Emerald cheers. To be clear I do not disagree with you, this is more questions surrounding your model. I think subjective access and empirical generalisability are two different things

I note you use the phrase "tactics" - but what if you replaced that with "expertise".

One could easily phrase it in another way to be more palatable to women. So instead of "he used tactics to increase attraction" it becomes "he used expertise to increase attraction".

Because eventually, using methods and frames for attraction, the aim would be to accumulate enough wisdom for expertise to be reached via the frame "training wheels". And the purpose of applying the tactics would be to reach expertise. The frame / method being discarded later.

Edited 1 hour ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Olaf]

@Sugarcoat Its okay, I just didn't understand, I was confused reading it

[Sugarcoat]

Just now, Olaf said:

@Sugarcoat Its okay, I just didn't understand, I was confused reading it

Ok I see