No, it’s not. If you get repeatibly the result that you creep out woman then you are by definition bad at reading the signals that lead up to doing something that creeps out the woman.
You calibrate your results based on empiric reality and not on what you read online about what certain signals mean. If you frequently freak out woman with asking them out then you reduce the intensity of what you ask women. You might instead ask a woman whether she has a boyfriend.
Not calibrating based on empiric reality but based on trying to guess based on rules that you read online is bad. If the empiric reality is that your actions creep out women than you change your actions instead of trying to rationalize your behavior with saying that you didn’t violate a clear social rule.
No, it’s not. If you get repeatibly the result that you creep out woman then you are by definition bad at reading the signals that lead up to doing something that creeps out the woman.
So your actual rule is, “people who are bad at reading subtle signals should never ask women out”?
You calibrate your results based on empiric reality and not on what you read online about what certain signals mean.
If there existed signals that were reliable indicators, you’d expect numerous people to have posted them online. The fact that you have to explicitly disclaim them is evidence that such signals don’t really exist, or are unreliable. Here’s another theory, a woman freaking out has more to do with how you ask and who’s doing the asking, specifically whether you are perceived as a high status “alpha”, a low status “gamma”, or somewhere in between. In particular “If you frequently freak out woman with asking them out then you reduce the intensity of what you ask women” is horrible advise since it will make you be perceived as lower status.
That isn’t “another theory”, because what ChristianKI was saying wasn’t a theory about what determines whether people freak out when approached (but yours is), and it was a theory about how to adjust your expectations concerning freakouts (but yours isn’t).
How frequently you make romantic/sexual overtures to women (and how “intense” they are) is not a thing that others can readily observe unless they’re with you all the time, and making such overtures and getting turned down flat because you creep the women out is … not obviously higher-status-looking than leaving them alone.
Even if it turns out that making such overtures, freaking their recipient out, and getting turned down flat is a small overall status gain for you, it still doesn’t follow that you should do it—unless you simply don’t care about the women involved except as pawns in your status game. I would guess that being freaked out is an unpleasant experience for most women, and that consequently not freaking women out is a goal for most not-perfectly-selfish men. (It won’t and shouldn’t be the only goal, of course.)
How frequently you make romantic/sexual overtures to women (and how “intense” they are) is not a thing that others can readily observe unless they’re with you all the time
How intense a romantic overtone is can be readily observed while it is being made.
Yes, but unless your associates are following you around all the time and looking over your shoulder whenever you talk to a woman, none of them is going to see enough examples to get much idea of exactly what you’re doing.
So your actual rule is, “people who are bad at reading subtle signals should never ask women out”?
The question is not “what should people do” but “what is being creepy about”. Being creepy is quite often about not being good at understanding other people and acting badly as a result.
If you are bad at reading subtle sign the straightforward way is to learn to get better at it.
For that it’s helpful to do bodywork and train to perceive was your own body is doing.
It’s also helpful to go to workshops with people who give you honest and direct feedback.
Even textbook PUA has it’s compliance tests to get information about whether a woman is likely to say ‘yes’.
In particular “If you frequently freak out woman with asking them out then you reduce the intensity of what you ask women” is horrible advise since it will make you be perceived as lower status.
If you frequently get turned down in a way that freaks out the woman, that means that you have a lower status. If the woman then tells other people about how you are creepy you will lose a lot more status.
On the other hand asking a woman whether she has is single is in many cases not inherently a low status move. Various forms of flirting are no low status moves.
Even if don’t really care about the woman, when a male friends acts in a very uncalibrated way and asks a woman out in a way that freaks her out, he loses status in my eyes.
The same is not true with male friends who are calibrated and flirt in a way that the woman could turn down.
If there existed signals that were reliable indicators, you’d expect numerous people to have posted them online.
Only if the signals could be written down in a straightforward way. Any article would give you system II knowledge while the important skill is a system I skill.
Quite a lot of signal reading I do on a daily basis are system one skills.
It’s quite hard to give someone a step by step process to feel his own heartbeat. At the same time it’s an ability that you can reliably develop if you spend enough time meditating.
It’s so funny when people try to invoke canine social structure to predict how modern human courtship will play out. If a man asks a woman out in the forest and there is nobody around to ascribe status to him, can the woman still form judgments as to his attractiveness?
Can you give a description of these signals and which signals imply what? Without that, this rule is so vague as to be useless.
No, it’s not. If you get repeatibly the result that you creep out woman then you are by definition bad at reading the signals that lead up to doing something that creeps out the woman.
You calibrate your results based on empiric reality and not on what you read online about what certain signals mean. If you frequently freak out woman with asking them out then you reduce the intensity of what you ask women. You might instead ask a woman whether she has a boyfriend.
Not calibrating based on empiric reality but based on trying to guess based on rules that you read online is bad. If the empiric reality is that your actions creep out women than you change your actions instead of trying to rationalize your behavior with saying that you didn’t violate a clear social rule.
So your actual rule is, “people who are bad at reading subtle signals should never ask women out”?
If there existed signals that were reliable indicators, you’d expect numerous people to have posted them online. The fact that you have to explicitly disclaim them is evidence that such signals don’t really exist, or are unreliable. Here’s another theory, a woman freaking out has more to do with how you ask and who’s doing the asking, specifically whether you are perceived as a high status “alpha”, a low status “gamma”, or somewhere in between. In particular “If you frequently freak out woman with asking them out then you reduce the intensity of what you ask women” is horrible advise since it will make you be perceived as lower status.
That isn’t “another theory”, because what ChristianKI was saying wasn’t a theory about what determines whether people freak out when approached (but yours is), and it was a theory about how to adjust your expectations concerning freakouts (but yours isn’t).
How frequently you make romantic/sexual overtures to women (and how “intense” they are) is not a thing that others can readily observe unless they’re with you all the time, and making such overtures and getting turned down flat because you creep the women out is … not obviously higher-status-looking than leaving them alone.
Even if it turns out that making such overtures, freaking their recipient out, and getting turned down flat is a small overall status gain for you, it still doesn’t follow that you should do it—unless you simply don’t care about the women involved except as pawns in your status game. I would guess that being freaked out is an unpleasant experience for most women, and that consequently not freaking women out is a goal for most not-perfectly-selfish men. (It won’t and shouldn’t be the only goal, of course.)
How intense a romantic overtone is can be readily observed while it is being made.
Yes, but unless your associates are following you around all the time and looking over your shoulder whenever you talk to a woman, none of them is going to see enough examples to get much idea of exactly what you’re doing.
The question is not “what should people do” but “what is being creepy about”. Being creepy is quite often about not being good at understanding other people and acting badly as a result.
If you are bad at reading subtle sign the straightforward way is to learn to get better at it. For that it’s helpful to do bodywork and train to perceive was your own body is doing. It’s also helpful to go to workshops with people who give you honest and direct feedback.
Even textbook PUA has it’s compliance tests to get information about whether a woman is likely to say ‘yes’.
If you frequently get turned down in a way that freaks out the woman, that means that you have a lower status. If the woman then tells other people about how you are creepy you will lose a lot more status.
On the other hand asking a woman whether she has is single is in many cases not inherently a low status move. Various forms of flirting are no low status moves.
Even if don’t really care about the woman, when a male friends acts in a very uncalibrated way and asks a woman out in a way that freaks her out, he loses status in my eyes. The same is not true with male friends who are calibrated and flirt in a way that the woman could turn down.
Only if the signals could be written down in a straightforward way. Any article would give you system II knowledge while the important skill is a system I skill.
And yet, you’re sure that the signals exist and they’re reliable indicators.
Quite a lot of signal reading I do on a daily basis are system one skills.
It’s quite hard to give someone a step by step process to feel his own heartbeat. At the same time it’s an ability that you can reliably develop if you spend enough time meditating.
It’s so funny when people try to invoke canine social structure to predict how modern human courtship will play out. If a man asks a woman out in the forest and there is nobody around to ascribe status to him, can the woman still form judgments as to his attractiveness?