|
We are extremely close to shutting down this thread for the same reasons the PUA thread was shut down. While some of the time this thread contains actual discussion with people asking help and people giving nice advice, it often gets derailed by rubbish that should not be here. The moderation team will be trying to steer this thread in a different direction from now on.
Posts of the following nature are banned:
1) ANYTHING regarding PUA. If your post contains the words 'alpha' or 'beta' or anything of that sort please don't hit post.
2) Stupid brags. You can tell us about your nice success stories with someone, but posts such as 'lol 50 Tinder matches' are a no-no.
3) Any misogynistic bullshit, including discussion about rape culture.
4) One night stands and random sex. These are basically brags that invariably devolve into gender role discussions and misogynistic comments.
Last chance, guys. This thread is for dating advice and sharing dating stories. While gender roles, sociocultural norms, and our biological imperative to reproduce are all tangentially related, these subjects are not the main purpose of the thread. Please AVOID these discussions. If you want to discuss them at length, go to PMs or start a blog. If you disagree with someone's ideologies, state that you disagree with them and why they won't work from a dating standpoint and move on. We will not tolerate any lengthy derailments that aren't directly about dating. |
On June 06 2013 20:35 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 20:30 Killscreen wrote:On June 06 2013 20:24 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 19:19 Killscreen wrote:On June 06 2013 19:06 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 14:13 Ghostcom wrote:On June 06 2013 13:42 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 13:38 VayneAuthority wrote:
some people read way too much of those pick up artist books lol, all this talk about value has me rolling on the floor. So in other words, you're resorting to fallacy because you don't actually have any logical argument to make, nevermind the fact that field of economics has a well-established history of studying dating in terms of value, supply/demand, etc. The field of economics is simply just such a great place to look for validation of theories, being such an exact science and all. Whilst there is definitely something to the question of value, it is really not as a objective measurement as a lot of PUAs try to make it out to be. You're demonstrating a misunderstanding of basic economics. Mainstream neoclassical economics considers "value" to be the price something would bring in an open and competitive market. The fact that different buyers might be willing to pay different amounts doesn't change the fact that value is an objective measurement of what something would end up selling for if presented to all of those buyers. Sexual marketplace value is similarly an objective measurement. Thought it might be difficult or impossible to measure as precisely as, say, the value of a corporate share, you can nevertheless estimate that value, and determine what might increase or decrease that value. In my experience your "value" is precisely what you perceive it to be. If you subconsciously believe shes "higher value", so will she. Having muscles and money definitely helps, but in the end simply believing you're good enough for her will make a bigger difference. "Your StarCraft 'skill' is precisely what you perceive it to be. If you subconsciously believe your opponent is 'higher skill', so will he. Having APM and game sense definitely help, but in the end simply believing you're good enough to beat him will make a bigger difference." Can you spot the error in that line of reasoning? Yes, you are comparing something tangible and quantifiable to something that isnt. Sexual marketplace value is just as tangible and quantifiable as StarCraft skill. Incidentally, the point I was making is that your perception of your value cannot change aspects of your value such as your financial status, physical stature, or social status. Sure, confidence helps, but simply believing you're good enough for a supermodel will not change the fact that she will not date an unemployed basement dweller with any amount of confidence. On top of that, too much confidence looks absolutely stupid if there is nothing to back it up.
You're half right and half wrong.
Man-value plays a lot when you want to pick up mainstream chicks. Be it in bar, at your office or in the street. You don't need something in common with her, and most-likely your relationship won't last long. And neither of you will be satisfied. Pretty sure thats not what we want. Afterall its not a pickup site.
To get a 'real' girl-friend/lover/wife you don't need to concentrate on your value, just get into some minimum treshold. I guess having a simple college degree and mid-class job will suffice.
The problem is finding the right one.
|
On June 06 2013 20:50 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 20:45 Mstring wrote:On June 06 2013 20:42 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 20:39 Mstring wrote:On June 06 2013 20:30 sunprince wrote:
Also, who cares "how the girl would enjoy being described"? You attribute far too much importance to the theoretical feelings of other people, feelings that have no bearing on the issue. Would you share these descriptions with girls you meet? If not, why not? I'm not a PUA, so I don't communicate using silly jargon like that. However, your point is still irrelevant. I don't recall trying to make a point, could you quote it? I'm referring to the implied point behind your question. Don't be deliberately obtuse, it's not conducive to an effective discussion. Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 20:45 Mstring wrote:
I'll ask a different question given this new information: Would you talk to girls you meet about what you post about in this thread or even show them your forum posts? Would you tell them about what you are doing to increase your "value" in the "sexual marketplace"? If not, why not? You failed to address my point on irrelevance. Again, why does it matter whether or not I would show them?
Is there a reason you are avoiding such a simple question?
Even if it were true that there is some hidden implied point behind my questions, what do you have to lose by letting me lead you?
Effective communication starts with honestly addressing the EXPLICIT, not avoiding what you assume to be implicit.
"Matter" has nothing to do with it. I'm simply curious and think it's worth exploring with you. You don't have to oblige my questions. I won't hold it against you.
Additionally, I did address your point on irrelevance; I answered your query regarding the co-worker. Now back to my question, would you or wouldn't you share these models and theories?
|
On June 06 2013 20:42 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 20:39 Mstring wrote:On June 06 2013 20:30 sunprince wrote:
Also, who cares "how the girl would enjoy being described"? You attribute far too much importance to the theoretical feelings of other people, feelings that have no bearing on the issue. Would you share these descriptions with girls you meet? If not, why not? I'm not a PUA, so I don't communicate using silly jargon like that.
Did you retire?
|
On June 03 2013 22:11 TOCHMY wrote:
I've had a full beard for like 2 years, and I quite enjoy having it. It suits me I feel.
What does one do when the girl wants me to shave and pulls the "do it for me" card?
I don't wanna shave T_T
Ha, my situation is pretty much the opposite. I used to have really long hair and a huge untidy beard when I met my better half. We had been going out for a couple of months tops when I cut everything without consulting her. She wasn't too happy about it, as my facial hair apparently was the thing that originally caught her attention.
I haven't cut anything for a year now, and she insists me to keep growing both my hair and beard. I've never actually grown anything on purpose, I'm just lazy. Besides, I find shaving and such activities a tad too feminine.
On the other hand, sporting a skindhead look feels so refreshing and effortless after having to deal with combing etc. for ~10 years. I'm 25 and there's no sign of balding yet, so I guess I should enjoy having hair in the first place while I can.
As for the "do it for me" card, it's not a big deal for me. I enjoy making my woman happy, especially by doing nothing. 
|
On June 06 2013 20:51 Killscreen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 20:35 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 20:30 Killscreen wrote:On June 06 2013 20:24 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 19:19 Killscreen wrote:On June 06 2013 19:06 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 14:13 Ghostcom wrote:On June 06 2013 13:42 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 13:38 VayneAuthority wrote:
some people read way too much of those pick up artist books lol, all this talk about value has me rolling on the floor. So in other words, you're resorting to fallacy because you don't actually have any logical argument to make, nevermind the fact that field of economics has a well-established history of studying dating in terms of value, supply/demand, etc. The field of economics is simply just such a great place to look for validation of theories, being such an exact science and all. Whilst there is definitely something to the question of value, it is really not as a objective measurement as a lot of PUAs try to make it out to be. You're demonstrating a misunderstanding of basic economics. Mainstream neoclassical economics considers "value" to be the price something would bring in an open and competitive market. The fact that different buyers might be willing to pay different amounts doesn't change the fact that value is an objective measurement of what something would end up selling for if presented to all of those buyers. Sexual marketplace value is similarly an objective measurement. Thought it might be difficult or impossible to measure as precisely as, say, the value of a corporate share, you can nevertheless estimate that value, and determine what might increase or decrease that value. In my experience your "value" is precisely what you perceive it to be. If you subconsciously believe shes "higher value", so will she. Having muscles and money definitely helps, but in the end simply believing you're good enough for her will make a bigger difference. "Your StarCraft 'skill' is precisely what you perceive it to be. If you subconsciously believe your opponent is 'higher skill', so will he. Having APM and game sense definitely help, but in the end simply believing you're good enough to beat him will make a bigger difference." Can you spot the error in that line of reasoning? Yes, you are comparing something tangible and quantifiable to something that isnt. Sexual marketplace value is just as tangible and quantifiable as StarCraft skill. Im not sure how you define "sexual marketplace value", but Im talking about social value, roughly what we call popularity, being considered cool, desireable etc, and that is highly contextual. A person can have really high value in some situations and really low value in others. It's entirely contextual and therefore definitely not as tangible and quantifiable as sc2 skill
StarCraft skill is contextual as well. Given different races, different maps, more than 2 players, etc., a given player's performance can vary. This doesn't change the fact that skill can be measured.
On June 06 2013 20:51 Killscreen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 20:35 sunprince wrote:
Incidentally, the point I was making is that your perception of your value cannot change aspects of your value such as your financial status, physical stature, or social status. Sure, confidence helps, but simply believing you're good enough for a supermodel will not change the fact that she will not date an unemployed basement dweller with any amount of confidence. On top of that, too much confidence looks absolutely stupid if there is nothing to back it up. You're overestimating the importance of these superficial values. Social status is so much more important than money and looks. Thing is, if you behave as a high status individual you will be perceived as one, and thus becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
Social status is indeed much more important than money and looks. However, money and looks play a part in determining your social status, along with other things. Merely behaving as a high status individual is not enough to be perceived as one. If you don't believe me, try walking into an Oscar afterparty, or a DAR debutante ball, or a presidential fundraiser dinner, and try to fit in without being kicked out.
On June 06 2013 20:51 Killscreen wrote:
I know plenty of guys who by your standards are low value individuals and they do just fine with women. I also know guys with good jobs who are fit and could barely get laid in a womens prison with a bunch of pardons.
Exceptions do not make the rule, nor do they disprove a general trend. Saying that you know poor doctors does not change the fact that doctors generally make good incomes, and that becoming a doctor generally increases your wealth.
|
On June 06 2013 20:51 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 20:35 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 20:30 Killscreen wrote:On June 06 2013 20:24 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 19:19 Killscreen wrote:On June 06 2013 19:06 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 14:13 Ghostcom wrote:On June 06 2013 13:42 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 13:38 VayneAuthority wrote:
some people read way too much of those pick up artist books lol, all this talk about value has me rolling on the floor. So in other words, you're resorting to fallacy because you don't actually have any logical argument to make, nevermind the fact that field of economics has a well-established history of studying dating in terms of value, supply/demand, etc. The field of economics is simply just such a great place to look for validation of theories, being such an exact science and all. Whilst there is definitely something to the question of value, it is really not as a objective measurement as a lot of PUAs try to make it out to be. You're demonstrating a misunderstanding of basic economics. Mainstream neoclassical economics considers "value" to be the price something would bring in an open and competitive market. The fact that different buyers might be willing to pay different amounts doesn't change the fact that value is an objective measurement of what something would end up selling for if presented to all of those buyers. Sexual marketplace value is similarly an objective measurement. Thought it might be difficult or impossible to measure as precisely as, say, the value of a corporate share, you can nevertheless estimate that value, and determine what might increase or decrease that value. In my experience your "value" is precisely what you perceive it to be. If you subconsciously believe shes "higher value", so will she. Having muscles and money definitely helps, but in the end simply believing you're good enough for her will make a bigger difference. "Your StarCraft 'skill' is precisely what you perceive it to be. If you subconsciously believe your opponent is 'higher skill', so will he. Having APM and game sense definitely help, but in the end simply believing you're good enough to beat him will make a bigger difference." Can you spot the error in that line of reasoning? Yes, you are comparing something tangible and quantifiable to something that isnt. Sexual marketplace value is just as tangible and quantifiable as StarCraft skill. Incidentally, the point I was making is that your perception of your value cannot change aspects of your value such as your financial status, physical stature, or social status. Sure, confidence helps, but simply believing you're good enough for a supermodel will not change the fact that she will not date an unemployed basement dweller with any amount of confidence. On top of that, too much confidence looks absolutely stupid if there is nothing to back it up. You're half right and half wrong. Man-value plays a lot when you want to pick up mainstream chicks. Be it in bar, at your office or in the street. You don't need something in common with her, and most-likely your relationship won't last long. And neither of you will be satisfied. Pretty sure thats not what we want. Afterall its not a pickup site. To get a 'real' girl-friend/lover/wife you don't need to concentrate on your value, just get into some minimum treshold. I guess having a simple college degree and mid-class job will suffice. The problem is finding the right one.
A minimum threshold of value is required to attain the minimum threshold of any girl.
However, if you want a girl with high value, you're going to need to be guy with equal or higher value.
|
On June 06 2013 20:52 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 20:50 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 20:45 Mstring wrote:On June 06 2013 20:42 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 20:39 Mstring wrote:On June 06 2013 20:30 sunprince wrote:
Also, who cares "how the girl would enjoy being described"? You attribute far too much importance to the theoretical feelings of other people, feelings that have no bearing on the issue. Would you share these descriptions with girls you meet? If not, why not? I'm not a PUA, so I don't communicate using silly jargon like that. However, your point is still irrelevant. I don't recall trying to make a point, could you quote it? I'm referring to the implied point behind your question. Don't be deliberately obtuse, it's not conducive to an effective discussion. On June 06 2013 20:45 Mstring wrote:
I'll ask a different question given this new information: Would you talk to girls you meet about what you post about in this thread or even show them your forum posts? Would you tell them about what you are doing to increase your "value" in the "sexual marketplace"? If not, why not? You failed to address my point on irrelevance. Again, why does it matter whether or not I would show them? Is there a reason you are avoiding such a simple question?
Because you hadn't answered mine.
On June 06 2013 20:52 Mstring wrote:
Even if it were true that there is some hidden implied point behind my questions, what do you have to lose by letting me lead you?
I waste time getting sidetracked by sophistry instead of actually dealing with the pertinent discussion topic.
On June 06 2013 20:52 Mstring wrote:
Effective communication starts with honestly addressing the EXPLICIT, not avoiding what you assume to be implicit.
You're cherrypicking which parts you want to keep for your own benefit. If you want to communicate explicitly, then present a thesis. So far, it looks like you're just looking for holes to pick at while not exposing any argument that can be attacked in turn.
On June 06 2013 20:52 Mstring wrote:
"Matter" has nothing to do with it. I'm simply curious and think it's worth exploring with you. You don't have to oblige my questions. I won't hold it against you.
Additionally, I did address your point on irrelevance; I answered your query regarding the co-worker. Now back to my question, would you or wouldn't you share these models and theories?
You edited that in after my original response. Accordingly, I will answer.
It depends. The nature of this type of discussion is generally considered politically incorrect and a taboo subject. Therefore, in general I would refrain from engaging in this type of discussion except with people I am close to, in the same way that I refrain from engaging in political and religious debates except with people I am close to. My girlfriends and close friends are aware of my knowledge/positions on sociosexual topics, just as they are aware of my atheist and libertarian leanings.
|
On June 06 2013 21:00 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 20:51 saddaromma wrote:On June 06 2013 20:35 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 20:30 Killscreen wrote:On June 06 2013 20:24 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 19:19 Killscreen wrote:On June 06 2013 19:06 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 14:13 Ghostcom wrote:On June 06 2013 13:42 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 13:38 VayneAuthority wrote:
some people read way too much of those pick up artist books lol, all this talk about value has me rolling on the floor. So in other words, you're resorting to fallacy because you don't actually have any logical argument to make, nevermind the fact that field of economics has a well-established history of studying dating in terms of value, supply/demand, etc. The field of economics is simply just such a great place to look for validation of theories, being such an exact science and all. Whilst there is definitely something to the question of value, it is really not as a objective measurement as a lot of PUAs try to make it out to be. You're demonstrating a misunderstanding of basic economics. Mainstream neoclassical economics considers "value" to be the price something would bring in an open and competitive market. The fact that different buyers might be willing to pay different amounts doesn't change the fact that value is an objective measurement of what something would end up selling for if presented to all of those buyers. Sexual marketplace value is similarly an objective measurement. Thought it might be difficult or impossible to measure as precisely as, say, the value of a corporate share, you can nevertheless estimate that value, and determine what might increase or decrease that value. In my experience your "value" is precisely what you perceive it to be. If you subconsciously believe shes "higher value", so will she. Having muscles and money definitely helps, but in the end simply believing you're good enough for her will make a bigger difference. "Your StarCraft 'skill' is precisely what you perceive it to be. If you subconsciously believe your opponent is 'higher skill', so will he. Having APM and game sense definitely help, but in the end simply believing you're good enough to beat him will make a bigger difference." Can you spot the error in that line of reasoning? Yes, you are comparing something tangible and quantifiable to something that isnt. Sexual marketplace value is just as tangible and quantifiable as StarCraft skill. Incidentally, the point I was making is that your perception of your value cannot change aspects of your value such as your financial status, physical stature, or social status. Sure, confidence helps, but simply believing you're good enough for a supermodel will not change the fact that she will not date an unemployed basement dweller with any amount of confidence. On top of that, too much confidence looks absolutely stupid if there is nothing to back it up. You're half right and half wrong. Man-value plays a lot when you want to pick up mainstream chicks. Be it in bar, at your office or in the street. You don't need something in common with her, and most-likely your relationship won't last long. And neither of you will be satisfied. Pretty sure thats not what we want. Afterall its not a pickup site. To get a 'real' girl-friend/lover/wife you don't need to concentrate on your value, just get into some minimum treshold. I guess having a simple college degree and mid-class job will suffice. The problem is finding the right one. A minimum threshold of value is required to attain the minimum threshold of any girl. However, if you want a girl with high value, you're going to need to be guy with equal or higher value.
What do you mean by 'girl with high value', is it that girl requires high value or she has it? If latter then I guess you're kinda wrong. Princess can easily fall in love with a commoner (and vice-versa).
Man-woman relationship is not economics. Its about feelings.
|
On June 06 2013 20:53 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 20:42 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 20:39 Mstring wrote:On June 06 2013 20:30 sunprince wrote:
Also, who cares "how the girl would enjoy being described"? You attribute far too much importance to the theoretical feelings of other people, feelings that have no bearing on the issue. Would you share these descriptions with girls you meet? If not, why not? I'm not a PUA, so I don't communicate using silly jargon like that. Did you retire?
No. One can read and learn about pick-up without agreeing with everything (or anything) that PUAs say/believe, just as one can read and learn about Marxism without agreeing with all or any of Marxist thought.
At one point, I discovered the material, read it, compared it to academic studies on the topic, tested some of the theories/material, and drew my own conclusions. There's plenty I don't agree with (PUA theory misunderstands evolutionary psychology, NLP is essentially hypnosis junk science, and pick-up focuses on improving 'advertising' instead of the 'product'), but nevertheless that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything.
|
On June 06 2013 21:10 sunprince wrote:
You're cherrypicking which parts you want to keep for your own benefit. If you want to communicate explicitly, then present a thesis. So far, it looks like you're just looking for holes to pick at while not exposing any argument that can be attacked in turn.
I can't say I understand the way you are behaving towards me. I'm not trying to make any points or poke holes in anything. I'm here to teach and to learn and asking questions is how I do it. I think you're battling against yourself here. If you don't see value in answering my questions honestly as they are presented, that's perfectly fine. Have a nice day my friend.
|
On June 06 2013 21:16 sunprince wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 06 2013 20:53 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 20:42 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 20:39 Mstring wrote:On June 06 2013 20:30 sunprince wrote:
Also, who cares "how the girl would enjoy being described"? You attribute far too much importance to the theoretical feelings of other people, feelings that have no bearing on the issue. Would you share these descriptions with girls you meet? If not, why not? I'm not a PUA, so I don't communicate using silly jargon like that. Did you retire? No. One can read and learn about pick-up without agreeing with everything (or anything) that PUAs say/believe, just as one can read and learn about Marxism without agreeing with all or any of Marxist thought. At one point, I discovered the material, read it, compared it to academic studies on the topic, tested some of the theories/material, and drew my own conclusions. There's plenty I don't agree with (PUA theory misunderstands evolutionary psychology, NLP is essentially hypnosis junk science, and pick-up focuses on improving 'advertising' instead of the 'product') + Show Spoiler +, but nevertheless that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything.
Lulz sunprince that is pick-up in a nutshell right there.
|
On June 06 2013 21:10 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:00 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 20:51 saddaromma wrote:On June 06 2013 20:35 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 20:30 Killscreen wrote:On June 06 2013 20:24 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 19:19 Killscreen wrote:On June 06 2013 19:06 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 14:13 Ghostcom wrote:On June 06 2013 13:42 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
So in other words, you're resorting to fallacy because you don't actually have any logical argument to make, nevermind the fact that field of economics has a well-established history of studying dating in terms of value, supply/demand, etc. The field of economics is simply just such a great place to look for validation of theories, being such an exact science and all. Whilst there is definitely something to the question of value, it is really not as a objective measurement as a lot of PUAs try to make it out to be. You're demonstrating a misunderstanding of basic economics. Mainstream neoclassical economics considers "value" to be the price something would bring in an open and competitive market. The fact that different buyers might be willing to pay different amounts doesn't change the fact that value is an objective measurement of what something would end up selling for if presented to all of those buyers. Sexual marketplace value is similarly an objective measurement. Thought it might be difficult or impossible to measure as precisely as, say, the value of a corporate share, you can nevertheless estimate that value, and determine what might increase or decrease that value. In my experience your "value" is precisely what you perceive it to be. If you subconsciously believe shes "higher value", so will she. Having muscles and money definitely helps, but in the end simply believing you're good enough for her will make a bigger difference. "Your StarCraft 'skill' is precisely what you perceive it to be. If you subconsciously believe your opponent is 'higher skill', so will he. Having APM and game sense definitely help, but in the end simply believing you're good enough to beat him will make a bigger difference." Can you spot the error in that line of reasoning? Yes, you are comparing something tangible and quantifiable to something that isnt. Sexual marketplace value is just as tangible and quantifiable as StarCraft skill. Incidentally, the point I was making is that your perception of your value cannot change aspects of your value such as your financial status, physical stature, or social status. Sure, confidence helps, but simply believing you're good enough for a supermodel will not change the fact that she will not date an unemployed basement dweller with any amount of confidence. On top of that, too much confidence looks absolutely stupid if there is nothing to back it up. You're half right and half wrong. Man-value plays a lot when you want to pick up mainstream chicks. Be it in bar, at your office or in the street. You don't need something in common with her, and most-likely your relationship won't last long. And neither of you will be satisfied. Pretty sure thats not what we want. Afterall its not a pickup site. To get a 'real' girl-friend/lover/wife you don't need to concentrate on your value, just get into some minimum treshold. I guess having a simple college degree and mid-class job will suffice. The problem is finding the right one. A minimum threshold of value is required to attain the minimum threshold of any girl. However, if you want a girl with high value, you're going to need to be guy with equal or higher value. What do you mean by 'girl with high value', is it that girl requires high value or she has it? If latter then I guess you're kinda wrong. Princess can easily fall in love with a commoner (and vice-versa).
By 'value', I'm referring to sexual marketplace value. A woman's sexual marketplace value is primarily determined by her physical attractiveness (which incorporates youth, fertility, fitness, etc.), and secondarily by traits such as intelligence, femininity, sexiness, and pleasing personality.
To put it simply, if you want a beautiful, highly desirable woman who can have her pick of nearly any man she wants, then you had better be a highly desirable man yourself. Otherwise, why would she settle for you when she can do so much better?
On June 06 2013 21:10 saddaromma wrote:
Man-woman relationship is not economics. Its about feelings.
Feelings determine human behavior. Economics studies human behavior.
|
On June 06 2013 21:22 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:10 sunprince wrote:
You're cherrypicking which parts you want to keep for your own benefit. If you want to communicate explicitly, then present a thesis. So far, it looks like you're just looking for holes to pick at while not exposing any argument that can be attacked in turn.
I can't say I understand the way you are behaving towards me. I'm not trying to make any points or poke holes in anything. I'm here to teach and to learn and asking questions is how I do it. I think you're battling against yourself here. If you don't see value in answering my questions honestly as they are presented, that's perfectly fine. Have a nice day my friend.
I did answer your question.
I am responding to you because your posts have followed in a pattern that is reminiscent of those who engage in sophistry and hostile discourse. If I am mistaken, then I withdraw any ill will I have expressed towards you.
|
On June 06 2013 21:23 Zealotdriver wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:16 sunprince wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 06 2013 20:53 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 20:42 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 20:39 Mstring wrote:On June 06 2013 20:30 sunprince wrote:
Also, who cares "how the girl would enjoy being described"? You attribute far too much importance to the theoretical feelings of other people, feelings that have no bearing on the issue. Would you share these descriptions with girls you meet? If not, why not? I'm not a PUA, so I don't communicate using silly jargon like that. Did you retire? No. One can read and learn about pick-up without agreeing with everything (or anything) that PUAs say/believe, just as one can read and learn about Marxism without agreeing with all or any of Marxist thought. At one point, I discovered the material, read it, compared it to academic studies on the topic, tested some of the theories/material, and drew my own conclusions. There's plenty I don't agree with (PUA theory misunderstands evolutionary psychology, NLP is essentially hypnosis junk science, and pick-up focuses on improving 'advertising' instead of the 'product') + Show Spoiler +, but nevertheless that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything. Lulz sunprince that is pick-up in a nutshell right there.
Indeed, and that's my biggest disagreement with pick-up.
I do think that improving advertising and appearances can be a crucial component (particularly if you are hampered by unusually bad advertising), and that pick-up has valuable information on how to do that. However, PUAs seem to over-prioritize that advertising and place little emphasis on improving the product.
|
On June 06 2013 21:25 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:10 saddaromma wrote:On June 06 2013 21:00 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 20:51 saddaromma wrote:On June 06 2013 20:35 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 20:30 Killscreen wrote:On June 06 2013 20:24 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 19:19 Killscreen wrote:On June 06 2013 19:06 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 14:13 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
The field of economics is simply just such a great place to look for validation of theories, being such an exact science and all.
Whilst there is definitely something to the question of value, it is really not as a objective measurement as a lot of PUAs try to make it out to be. You're demonstrating a misunderstanding of basic economics. Mainstream neoclassical economics considers "value" to be the price something would bring in an open and competitive market. The fact that different buyers might be willing to pay different amounts doesn't change the fact that value is an objective measurement of what something would end up selling for if presented to all of those buyers. Sexual marketplace value is similarly an objective measurement. Thought it might be difficult or impossible to measure as precisely as, say, the value of a corporate share, you can nevertheless estimate that value, and determine what might increase or decrease that value. In my experience your "value" is precisely what you perceive it to be. If you subconsciously believe shes "higher value", so will she. Having muscles and money definitely helps, but in the end simply believing you're good enough for her will make a bigger difference. "Your StarCraft 'skill' is precisely what you perceive it to be. If you subconsciously believe your opponent is 'higher skill', so will he. Having APM and game sense definitely help, but in the end simply believing you're good enough to beat him will make a bigger difference." Can you spot the error in that line of reasoning? Yes, you are comparing something tangible and quantifiable to something that isnt. Sexual marketplace value is just as tangible and quantifiable as StarCraft skill. Incidentally, the point I was making is that your perception of your value cannot change aspects of your value such as your financial status, physical stature, or social status. Sure, confidence helps, but simply believing you're good enough for a supermodel will not change the fact that she will not date an unemployed basement dweller with any amount of confidence. On top of that, too much confidence looks absolutely stupid if there is nothing to back it up. You're half right and half wrong. Man-value plays a lot when you want to pick up mainstream chicks. Be it in bar, at your office or in the street. You don't need something in common with her, and most-likely your relationship won't last long. And neither of you will be satisfied. Pretty sure thats not what we want. Afterall its not a pickup site. To get a 'real' girl-friend/lover/wife you don't need to concentrate on your value, just get into some minimum treshold. I guess having a simple college degree and mid-class job will suffice. The problem is finding the right one. A minimum threshold of value is required to attain the minimum threshold of any girl. However, if you want a girl with high value, you're going to need to be guy with equal or higher value. What do you mean by 'girl with high value', is it that girl requires high value or she has it? If latter then I guess you're kinda wrong. Princess can easily fall in love with a commoner (and vice-versa). By 'value', I'm referring to sexual marketplace value. A woman's sexual marketplace value is primarily determined by her physical attractiveness (which incorporates youth, fertility, fitness, etc.), and secondarily by traits such as intelligence, femininity, sexiness, and pleasing personality. To put it simply, if you want a beautiful, highly desirable woman who can have her pick of nearly any man she wants, then you had better be a highly desirable man yourself. Otherwise, why would she settle for you when she can do so much better? Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:10 saddaromma wrote:Man-woman relationship is not economics. Its about feelings. Feelings determine human behavior. Economics studies human behavior.
Asking what you have to offer to a famous actress or so isn't really fair. If sexual marketplace value is real then it follows a bell curve, which means that most people are average and relatively close to each other in value. That girl you liked at that party is 9/10 times not going to be out of your league, the only question then is circumstances and personal match.
|
On June 06 2013 21:38 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:25 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 21:10 saddaromma wrote:On June 06 2013 21:00 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 20:51 saddaromma wrote:On June 06 2013 20:35 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 20:30 Killscreen wrote:On June 06 2013 20:24 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 19:19 Killscreen wrote:On June 06 2013 19:06 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
You're demonstrating a misunderstanding of basic economics.
Mainstream neoclassical economics considers "value" to be the price something would bring in an open and competitive market. The fact that different buyers might be willing to pay different amounts doesn't change the fact that value is an objective measurement of what something would end up selling for if presented to all of those buyers.
Sexual marketplace value is similarly an objective measurement. Thought it might be difficult or impossible to measure as precisely as, say, the value of a corporate share, you can nevertheless estimate that value, and determine what might increase or decrease that value. In my experience your "value" is precisely what you perceive it to be. If you subconsciously believe shes "higher value", so will she. Having muscles and money definitely helps, but in the end simply believing you're good enough for her will make a bigger difference. "Your StarCraft 'skill' is precisely what you perceive it to be. If you subconsciously believe your opponent is 'higher skill', so will he. Having APM and game sense definitely help, but in the end simply believing you're good enough to beat him will make a bigger difference." Can you spot the error in that line of reasoning? Yes, you are comparing something tangible and quantifiable to something that isnt. Sexual marketplace value is just as tangible and quantifiable as StarCraft skill. Incidentally, the point I was making is that your perception of your value cannot change aspects of your value such as your financial status, physical stature, or social status. Sure, confidence helps, but simply believing you're good enough for a supermodel will not change the fact that she will not date an unemployed basement dweller with any amount of confidence. On top of that, too much confidence looks absolutely stupid if there is nothing to back it up. You're half right and half wrong. Man-value plays a lot when you want to pick up mainstream chicks. Be it in bar, at your office or in the street. You don't need something in common with her, and most-likely your relationship won't last long. And neither of you will be satisfied. Pretty sure thats not what we want. Afterall its not a pickup site. To get a 'real' girl-friend/lover/wife you don't need to concentrate on your value, just get into some minimum treshold. I guess having a simple college degree and mid-class job will suffice. The problem is finding the right one. A minimum threshold of value is required to attain the minimum threshold of any girl. However, if you want a girl with high value, you're going to need to be guy with equal or higher value. What do you mean by 'girl with high value', is it that girl requires high value or she has it? If latter then I guess you're kinda wrong. Princess can easily fall in love with a commoner (and vice-versa). By 'value', I'm referring to sexual marketplace value. A woman's sexual marketplace value is primarily determined by her physical attractiveness (which incorporates youth, fertility, fitness, etc.), and secondarily by traits such as intelligence, femininity, sexiness, and pleasing personality. To put it simply, if you want a beautiful, highly desirable woman who can have her pick of nearly any man she wants, then you had better be a highly desirable man yourself. Otherwise, why would she settle for you when she can do so much better? On June 06 2013 21:10 saddaromma wrote:Man-woman relationship is not economics. Its about feelings. Feelings determine human behavior. Economics studies human behavior. Asking what you have to offer to a famous actress or so isn't really fair. If sexual marketplace value is real then it follows a bell curve, which means that most people are average and relatively close to each other in value. That girl you liked at that party is 9/10 times not going to be out of your league, the only question then is circumstances and personal match.
It is true that most people are average and relatively close in value. However, the girl you liked at that party is generally going to be above average in value, and in fact is likely to be one of the highest value girls that you met at the party.
Also, most guys are not interested in learning how they can date/fuck/marry an average girl; rather, they want the best girl (or close to the best girl) they can get. Accordingly, those guys are going to want to learn how to maximize their own value.
|
On June 06 2013 21:28 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:22 Mstring wrote:On June 06 2013 21:10 sunprince wrote:
You're cherrypicking which parts you want to keep for your own benefit. If you want to communicate explicitly, then present a thesis. So far, it looks like you're just looking for holes to pick at while not exposing any argument that can be attacked in turn.
I can't say I understand the way you are behaving towards me. I'm not trying to make any points or poke holes in anything. I'm here to teach and to learn and asking questions is how I do it. I think you're battling against yourself here. If you don't see value in answering my questions honestly as they are presented, that's perfectly fine. Have a nice day my friend. I did answer your question. I am responding to you because your posts have followed in a pattern that is reminiscent of those who engage in sophistry and hostile discourse. If I am mistaken, then I withdraw any ill will I have expressed towards you.
"However, your point is still irrelevant. I might describe a coworker to others as incompetent, without sharing this description with said coworker; would you take issue with this? Since the answer is probably not, I can only assume that the special consideration demanded for girls is a matter of putting them on a pedestal instead of treating them like human beings."
I don't feel as though you walked what you talked in your first reply. I don't think assuming hostility and proactively defending against it is treating people like human beings. Of course I was leading you (it's what I do), but to where I do not know. I haven't assumed anything about you (except that we may disagree on something, hence my interest in exploration) or your responses (i.e. "Since the answer is probably not, I can only assume that..."), I just read your post and got the urge to piss in the wind to see what happens. Take care.
|
On June 06 2013 21:53 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:28 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 21:22 Mstring wrote:On June 06 2013 21:10 sunprince wrote:
You're cherrypicking which parts you want to keep for your own benefit. If you want to communicate explicitly, then present a thesis. So far, it looks like you're just looking for holes to pick at while not exposing any argument that can be attacked in turn.
I can't say I understand the way you are behaving towards me. I'm not trying to make any points or poke holes in anything. I'm here to teach and to learn and asking questions is how I do it. I think you're battling against yourself here. If you don't see value in answering my questions honestly as they are presented, that's perfectly fine. Have a nice day my friend. I did answer your question. I am responding to you because your posts have followed in a pattern that is reminiscent of those who engage in sophistry and hostile discourse. If I am mistaken, then I withdraw any ill will I have expressed towards you. "However, your point is still irrelevant. I might describe a coworker to others as incompetent, without sharing this description with said coworker; would you take issue with this? Since the answer is probably not, I can only assume that the special consideration demanded for girls is a matter of putting them on a pedestal instead of treating them like human beings." I don't feel as though you walked what you talked in your first reply. I don't think assuming hostility and proactively defending against it is treating people like human beings. Of course I was leading you (it's what I do), but to where I do not know. I haven't assumed anything about you (except that we may disagree on something, hence my interest in exploration) or your responses (i.e. "Since the answer is probably not, I can only assume that..."), I just read your post and got the urge to piss in the wind to see what happens. Take care.
I'm referring to my answer at the bottom of this post.
|
On June 06 2013 21:43 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:38 Grumbels wrote:On June 06 2013 21:25 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 21:10 saddaromma wrote:On June 06 2013 21:00 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 20:51 saddaromma wrote:On June 06 2013 20:35 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 20:30 Killscreen wrote:On June 06 2013 20:24 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 19:19 Killscreen wrote:
[quote]
In my experience your "value" is precisely what you perceive it to be. If you subconsciously believe shes "higher value", so will she. Having muscles and money definitely helps, but in the end simply believing you're good enough for her will make a bigger difference. "Your StarCraft 'skill' is precisely what you perceive it to be. If you subconsciously believe your opponent is 'higher skill', so will he. Having APM and game sense definitely help, but in the end simply believing you're good enough to beat him will make a bigger difference." Can you spot the error in that line of reasoning? Yes, you are comparing something tangible and quantifiable to something that isnt. Sexual marketplace value is just as tangible and quantifiable as StarCraft skill. Incidentally, the point I was making is that your perception of your value cannot change aspects of your value such as your financial status, physical stature, or social status. Sure, confidence helps, but simply believing you're good enough for a supermodel will not change the fact that she will not date an unemployed basement dweller with any amount of confidence. On top of that, too much confidence looks absolutely stupid if there is nothing to back it up. You're half right and half wrong. Man-value plays a lot when you want to pick up mainstream chicks. Be it in bar, at your office or in the street. You don't need something in common with her, and most-likely your relationship won't last long. And neither of you will be satisfied. Pretty sure thats not what we want. Afterall its not a pickup site. To get a 'real' girl-friend/lover/wife you don't need to concentrate on your value, just get into some minimum treshold. I guess having a simple college degree and mid-class job will suffice. The problem is finding the right one. A minimum threshold of value is required to attain the minimum threshold of any girl. However, if you want a girl with high value, you're going to need to be guy with equal or higher value. What do you mean by 'girl with high value', is it that girl requires high value or she has it? If latter then I guess you're kinda wrong. Princess can easily fall in love with a commoner (and vice-versa). By 'value', I'm referring to sexual marketplace value. A woman's sexual marketplace value is primarily determined by her physical attractiveness (which incorporates youth, fertility, fitness, etc.), and secondarily by traits such as intelligence, femininity, sexiness, and pleasing personality. To put it simply, if you want a beautiful, highly desirable woman who can have her pick of nearly any man she wants, then you had better be a highly desirable man yourself. Otherwise, why would she settle for you when she can do so much better? On June 06 2013 21:10 saddaromma wrote:Man-woman relationship is not economics. Its about feelings. Feelings determine human behavior. Economics studies human behavior. Asking what you have to offer to a famous actress or so isn't really fair. If sexual marketplace value is real then it follows a bell curve, which means that most people are average and relatively close to each other in value. That girl you liked at that party is 9/10 times not going to be out of your league, the only question then is circumstances and personal match. It is true that most people are average and relatively close in value. However, the girl you liked at that party is generally going to be above average in value, and in fact is likely to be one of the highest value girls that you met at the party. Also, most guys are not interested in learning how they can date/fuck/marry an average girl; rather, they want the best girl (or close to the best girl) they can get. Accordingly, those guys are going to want to learn how to maximize their own value.
Women primarily look for healthy men. An all-round healthy man is fit, intelligent, attractive and well dressed. Fitness, intelligence and attractiveness are very closely linked since those attributes are some of the visually strongest indicators of health. Being able to fulfill at least 3 of the criteria will guarantee you a decent, if not better, chance to successfully engage women in almost any circumstance.
Unless you are born with some form of disability (mental, physical, immune system, health related) you can control all those factors. You can make sure your body is fit, you can read and educate yourself in general knowledge (women are always impressed by intelligence, or the appearance of it). Having a good general understanding of the world, politics, religions, social issues, etc. gives you many different ways to keep a woman engaged in conversation, and if you happen to know something about a subject she likes then it's a big bonus. When I mean intelligence I don't mean that you are a professor or some professional intellectual with a high degree.
Being well dressed does not mean you need to be wealthy (though that does make it much easier) but it means that you have a good sense of how to make yourself and your best physical features more prominent, also being fit multiplies your general attractiveness in and out of clothes.
If you have access to healthy food, education and a normally functioning brain you can affect all the most important features that make you attractive. You will not wonder if you are attractive or not, you will notice it and know it. Material wealth is secondary if you can present yourself to be an organism that has all the genetic and behavioral traits for health and success.
|
On June 06 2013 22:08 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 21:53 Mstring wrote:On June 06 2013 21:28 sunprince wrote:On June 06 2013 21:22 Mstring wrote:On June 06 2013 21:10 sunprince wrote:
You're cherrypicking which parts you want to keep for your own benefit. If you want to communicate explicitly, then present a thesis. So far, it looks like you're just looking for holes to pick at while not exposing any argument that can be attacked in turn.
I can't say I understand the way you are behaving towards me. I'm not trying to make any points or poke holes in anything. I'm here to teach and to learn and asking questions is how I do it. I think you're battling against yourself here. If you don't see value in answering my questions honestly as they are presented, that's perfectly fine. Have a nice day my friend. I did answer your question. I am responding to you because your posts have followed in a pattern that is reminiscent of those who engage in sophistry and hostile discourse. If I am mistaken, then I withdraw any ill will I have expressed towards you. "However, your point is still irrelevant. I might describe a coworker to others as incompetent, without sharing this description with said coworker; would you take issue with this? Since the answer is probably not, I can only assume that the special consideration demanded for girls is a matter of putting them on a pedestal instead of treating them like human beings." I don't feel as though you walked what you talked in your first reply. I don't think assuming hostility and proactively defending against it is treating people like human beings. Of course I was leading you (it's what I do), but to where I do not know. I haven't assumed anything about you (except that we may disagree on something, hence my interest in exploration) or your responses (i.e. "Since the answer is probably not, I can only assume that..."), I just read your post and got the urge to piss in the wind to see what happens. Take care. I'm referring to my answer at the bottom of this post.
My commentary is more-so in regards to the nature of our communication. In retrospect I could have taken more care (or any care :/) for it to be understood I'm not looking for an intellectual argument (perhaps a context of this thread that I was blind too) but an exchange of experiences and preferences. Without the "state transference" of being face-face, communication is so easily distorted. Thanks for your replies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
