Stop letting woman use you

[Ulax]

35 minutes ago, Emerald said:

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

I'm glad you're able to admit that  

[Emerald]

42 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@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.

Relative the dichotomy you mentioned of "subjective access' versus "empirical generalizability"...

It's not that I'm saying that empirical generalizability itself is an issue. I'm just arguing for a more holistic and helpful empirical generalizability than what men currently have access to... which requires receptivity to how women actually experience attractions.

Ultimately, empirical generalizability is the perspective that men have to work within, with regard to the female perspective on dating and attraction. And that isn't a problem in and of itself.

The issue is that, a lot about the reality of the subjective female experience is getting lost in translation relative to the current popular models of empirical generalizability... as it over-indexes on short-term results. But it misses the fact that these paradigms in themselves create a ceiling that will make it MUCH more difficult in the long-run for these men.

So, men operating through empirical generalizability is par for the course.

And the current models of empirical generalizability often have tactics that are effective towards very specific measurable ends... but might backfire in the long term in other ways that are profoundly detrimental to the man in ways that he's not aware of, simply because of his lack of experience with the subjective experience with womanhood and really understanding what it's like to be a woman who's very attracted to a man.

Also, the current models of empirical generalizability tend to get related to as a panacea understanding of women. That causes men who follow them and find comfort in them to hyper-attach to them... to the exclusion of the perspective of "How do women actually experience this subjectively?"

And this is when those models act more like a security blanket that blocks out deeper truths that are more conducive to understand and have genuine connection with women over the long run. 

Honestly, if a man is so attached to these paradigms, he's not going to be able to really see and understand the woman he's with as a whole person because his cup is already too full with he knowledge of the "empirical generalizability" model that's he's using to maximize short-term success and minimize risk.

Also, understanding the real subjective experiences of female attraction from a variety of women (and being genuinely receptive to these perspective) will also minimize feelings of alienation and shame, which is a major part of what causes connection with women to be scary and intimidating, in the first place.

Right now, the practical paradigms end up ramping up the pressure and fear even more, because female attraction has been framed in a way within these empirical generalizability models in a way that's hyper-objective and operationalizable (as that's what gives the greatest level of leverage)... but it ultimately frames women's sexuality as something that feels alien and cold to them.

So, it's really about developing a more holistic model of female sexuality that's based in the actual truth of the matter, even if that truth reveals something less certain or practically leveragable. And that requires a man to realize, "My paradigm on female sexuality was built for my comfort to minimize my vulnerabilities and to maximize my leverage in the situation. And while there are some effective practical parts of this paradigm that give me short-term measurable results, that doesn't mean that the paradigm is accurate or that the paradigm gives me a panacea understanding of women."

So, it's more about getting them to recognize the limitations of these practical paradigms in general... and to say, "These practical paradigms will likely backfire on you in the long-run, if you don't understand how high-discernment women are actually experiencing these practical tactics."

So, I would say... you can't develop true expertise about attracting women until you have a more holistic understanding of where your practical paradigms begin and end.

Edited 49 minutes ago by Emerald

[Emerald]

48 minutes ago, Olaf said:

@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

It's common in left-leaning political circles. 

[Emerald]

33 minutes ago, Ulax said:

I'm glad you're able to admit that  

Any human, including myself, can fall into logical fallacies when faced with cognitive dissonance.

The solution is non-defensive self-honesty and willingness to engage with the nuances of the opposing argument.

So, I'm not shaming you for using logical fallacies. But I am pointing it out.

Can you recognize that these statements are defenses that reflect a lack of openness to engagement with opposing perspectives?

Edited 37 minutes ago by Emerald

[Ulax]

6 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Can you recognize that these statements are defenses that reflect a lack of openness to engagement with opposing perspectives?

I'm flattered my recognition means so much to you .  But let's take it slow