I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t work on the type of woman I’d be interested in
I used to think things like that too. The older I got, the less I believed it. We grow up being taught certain idealizations about how people should be. They aren’t like that.
Corrupt politicians and businessmen “win” all the time, but I still don’t like them...
I don’t like them either. But I blame the people who vote for them. They’re the true problem.
I used to think things like that too. The older I got, the less I believed it. We grow up being taught certain idealizations about how people should be. They aren’t like that.
If you are saying you know better because you are older, I can’t argue with that because I am young. But as long as we are making arguments from experience, I’ve got to say, I think my girlfriend is like that. At the very least, I find that some of the population fit some of the idealizations of how people should be—although very few people fit them all.
And as long as we are speaking from experience, plenty of women have been attracted to me, despite my never pulling any of the subset of PUA behaviors which I’ve described as immoral. I’m not saying that being “nice” is all it takes—a lot of it is about being attractive, tall, well dressed and socially adept—and two of those things are trainable. I am just saying that being “bad” is not necessary...and I’d maintain that in the long run it’s not even helpful, since the type of people you attract is partly a reflection of your behavior.
If you are saying you know better because you are older,
I think I know better than I used to. Generalization increasingly made based on observations that cut across my natural preferences—not wishful thinking.
I think my girlfriend is like that.
Your girlfriend prefers a diffident man over a confident man? It’s always possible. We don’t all come from the same cookie cutter.
Your girlfriend prefers a diffident man over a confident man?
No, that’s really not what I said.
You said
To a large extent, the fact that such tactics win offends my sensibilities, I find the tactics annoying, and I would encourage those in a position to change the outcome to make those tactics lose.
I said in response
I’m pretty sure they [aforementioned PUA tactics] wouldn’t work on the type of woman I’d be interested in
You said in response
We grow up being taught certain idealizations about how people should be. They aren’t like that.
and that’s why I said
my girlfriend isn’t like that
“Like that” here means: not attracted to people who display “confidence” via aforementioned PUA tactics—by putting others down (AMOG), being overly persistent after being told off (bitch shield destroying) and pressuring people to make decisions they might regret later (bf destroyer).
So when I say my girlfriend is “like that” I mean she is someone who is not attracted to irresponsible, morally questionable displays of dominance which involve being presumptuous and putting other people down. As in, the tactics which you said would offend your sensibilities.
It is important to disassociate confidence (a positive trait) from a cluster of tactics which you just said offend your sensibilities (negative traits). Why did you just now treat “confidence” and “sensibility offending tactics” as synonymous? If the two are conflated in your mind and your model of confidence necessarily includes sensibility offending behavior, you’re going to end up either instinctively avoiding confidence or instinctively engaging in behavior that offends yourself...
I was discussing the basic premise that women prefer confident, dominating men. If they’re correct on the premise, then it’s just an argument over what techniques are effective to counterfeit that signal, if any.
You say the PUA tactics don’t work on your girlfriend. Maybe. I’d note that even if someone says they don’t like a particular tactic, that doesn’t mean that the tactic didn’t have the desired effect—“I really hate it when my confident, dominant man does X”. Yeah. But would you find him confident and dominant if he didn’t? Would he be “your man” if he didn’t?
I agree, that’s the trend. More the confident than the dominating though.
an argument over what techniques are effective to counterfeit that signal, if any.
Agreed on that too.
Here are signals which work, and I like- smiling, eye contact, casual touch, joking, interesting conversation...
Here are signals which work, and I don’t like that they work, but I do not morally object—demonstrating that other women are interested, being well dressed, displaying wealth, being in a position of authority....
These are signals which I morally object to, and I also express skepticism as to whether you get good results in the long run if you use these: subtle insults targeting insecurities (neg), antagonistic stance to other males (amog), ignoring “leave me alone” cues (bitch shield breaking), pressurizing in the face of significant resistance (bf destroyer and others)...
More universally, but dominating is probably more effective when it does work. And actual dominance over others—demonstrable power—is a huge plus.
Here are signals which work, and I don’t like that they work, but I do not morally object—demonstrating that other women are interested, being well dressed, displaying wealth, being in a position of authority....
I’ve been getting over the don’t like it part. Women are what they are.
[1] subtle insults targeting insecurities (neg), [2] antagonistic stance to other males (amog), [3] ignoring “leave me alone” cues (bitch shield breaking), [4] pressurizing in the face of significant resistance (bf destroyer and others)...
[1] Didn’t people used to just call this banter? Challenging back and forth remarks? Is Cary Grant “negging” in His Girl Friday? It doesn’t work universally—I find some women are just annoyed by banter and refuse to hit the ball back—but it’s a lot of fun when it does.
[2] Signals dominance. If it succeeds in driving other male off, so much the better. I’d wonder if the better strategy is alliance with the resident alpha male if he is on the hunt.
[3] Do the game theory. Bitch shield breaking more likely for desirable outcome for the PUA than scurrying off. You can’t win if you don’t play. They seem big on making it a numbers game.
[4] Significant resistance would imply to me at least a relatively bad hand. Play the bad hand, or fold. Similar to [3] in taking advantage of all opportunities.
For 2,3,4, there must be some point at which the opportunity costs make them a bad bet, though it seems something of a game of discovery where finding what works is a terminal good for them. But the strategies do seem to improve the odds of less than optimal situations to me. They don’t always work, but they do seem like good plays of bad hands.
I used to think things like that too. The older I got, the less I believed it. We grow up being taught certain idealizations about how people should be. They aren’t like that.
I don’t like them either. But I blame the people who vote for them. They’re the true problem.
If you are saying you know better because you are older, I can’t argue with that because I am young. But as long as we are making arguments from experience, I’ve got to say, I think my girlfriend is like that. At the very least, I find that some of the population fit some of the idealizations of how people should be—although very few people fit them all.
And as long as we are speaking from experience, plenty of women have been attracted to me, despite my never pulling any of the subset of PUA behaviors which I’ve described as immoral. I’m not saying that being “nice” is all it takes—a lot of it is about being attractive, tall, well dressed and socially adept—and two of those things are trainable. I am just saying that being “bad” is not necessary...and I’d maintain that in the long run it’s not even helpful, since the type of people you attract is partly a reflection of your behavior.
But that’s not really the test. The controlled test would be whether you had more success or less using the PUA behaviors or not.
I think I know better than I used to. Generalization increasingly made based on observations that cut across my natural preferences—not wishful thinking.
Your girlfriend prefers a diffident man over a confident man? It’s always possible. We don’t all come from the same cookie cutter.
No, that’s really not what I said.
You said
I said in response
You said in response
and that’s why I said
“Like that” here means: not attracted to people who display “confidence” via aforementioned PUA tactics—by putting others down (AMOG), being overly persistent after being told off (bitch shield destroying) and pressuring people to make decisions they might regret later (bf destroyer).
So when I say my girlfriend is “like that” I mean she is someone who is not attracted to irresponsible, morally questionable displays of dominance which involve being presumptuous and putting other people down. As in, the tactics which you said would offend your sensibilities.
It is important to disassociate confidence (a positive trait) from a cluster of tactics which you just said offend your sensibilities (negative traits). Why did you just now treat “confidence” and “sensibility offending tactics” as synonymous? If the two are conflated in your mind and your model of confidence necessarily includes sensibility offending behavior, you’re going to end up either instinctively avoiding confidence or instinctively engaging in behavior that offends yourself...
I was discussing the basic premise that women prefer confident, dominating men. If they’re correct on the premise, then it’s just an argument over what techniques are effective to counterfeit that signal, if any.
You say the PUA tactics don’t work on your girlfriend. Maybe. I’d note that even if someone says they don’t like a particular tactic, that doesn’t mean that the tactic didn’t have the desired effect—“I really hate it when my confident, dominant man does X”. Yeah. But would you find him confident and dominant if he didn’t? Would he be “your man” if he didn’t?
I think I’ve misrepresented my position
I agree, that’s the trend. More the confident than the dominating though.
Agreed on that too.
Here are signals which work, and I like- smiling, eye contact, casual touch, joking, interesting conversation...
Here are signals which work, and I don’t like that they work, but I do not morally object—demonstrating that other women are interested, being well dressed, displaying wealth, being in a position of authority....
These are signals which I morally object to, and I also express skepticism as to whether you get good results in the long run if you use these: subtle insults targeting insecurities (neg), antagonistic stance to other males (amog), ignoring “leave me alone” cues (bitch shield breaking), pressurizing in the face of significant resistance (bf destroyer and others)...
More universally, but dominating is probably more effective when it does work. And actual dominance over others—demonstrable power—is a huge plus.
I’ve been getting over the don’t like it part. Women are what they are.
[1] Didn’t people used to just call this banter? Challenging back and forth remarks? Is Cary Grant “negging” in His Girl Friday? It doesn’t work universally—I find some women are just annoyed by banter and refuse to hit the ball back—but it’s a lot of fun when it does.
[2] Signals dominance. If it succeeds in driving other male off, so much the better. I’d wonder if the better strategy is alliance with the resident alpha male if he is on the hunt.
[3] Do the game theory. Bitch shield breaking more likely for desirable outcome for the PUA than scurrying off. You can’t win if you don’t play. They seem big on making it a numbers game.
[4] Significant resistance would imply to me at least a relatively bad hand. Play the bad hand, or fold. Similar to [3] in taking advantage of all opportunities.
For 2,3,4, there must be some point at which the opportunity costs make them a bad bet, though it seems something of a game of discovery where finding what works is a terminal good for them. But the strategies do seem to improve the odds of less than optimal situations to me. They don’t always work, but they do seem like good plays of bad hands.