@ships Agree one hundred percent. Like I've said, a person is an organismic being. Biology and general tendencies play a big part. I don't discredit that.
But as you've alluded to, to remain generalized misses the individual uniqueness of a person.
Psychology came to this cross-roads back in the days of 'behavioural psychology', science and evo psyche.
For example, in trying to establish who would be good leaders they came up with 'trait theory'. The idea you could make a generalized concept of the consistent traits which make a good leader. You could then come up with surveys and if a person was deemed to have the correct traits then they were put in leadership positions. The old 'we have studied humans enough to predict what you will do'.
But this didn't always pan out, because people are greater than just certain traits.
This was a similar path in many fields where they came to realise it is extremely difficult to practice determinism based on generalization.
So in essence we have similar traits, generalized tendencies but we are also utterly unique. How those things will manifest is paved in unique ways, and people ALWAYS have ability to act against general patterns and past behaviours.
You and I are men, and as men we most likely share similar drives, biology, desires etc. At the same time, we are probably very different.Read More
@adam-l @INNASKILLZ2K20 Why not engange each women individually, while simultaneously having knowledge about their actions and manipulations in general? Purely generalized knowledge leads to "all women are whores and subhuman" "all men are asshole rapists and subhuman". Purely individual knowledge leads to "no no this woman is the ONE" "no no he's not like the other guys who fuck me and leave". Why not do both simultaneously?
@adam-l Your last few posts struck a cord with me.
The keywords we should look at closely are Obstetrical Dilemma and the overall Value of a birth - as in reproduction.
Obstetrical Dilemma pretty much forces women to be naturally manipulative because if they aren't, that tiger lurking the background will swoop in and get those easy calories, once he realizes that the woman is under no protection AND is pregnant, which makes her even more weaker than she already is by default. In contrast, other female species can shit out litters of kids and walk it off like it's another day in the field.
In our complex society with layers upon layers of social etiquette - some of which is plainly hidden in visible sight, women are naturally more adept at dealing with the world, at least on an average because their instinct fits our social matrix as a hand in a glove. Coupled with their natural halo effect of being women that men wanna fuck, they also hold an advantage on the social front to a certain degree.
To add on to the Value of birth, which will tie nicely to that Native American number system - although I think it's a lot more complex than that, a value of birth is automatically set at the very least to level 3 or even 4. To those of you who do not get it, it basically means that a woman can be a total failure in all fronts of life, but still "succeed" by the simple notion of the fact that she can shit out a kid. Men don't have that.
Then finally, there's the argument of InnaSkillz, where he says that he knows plenty of women who "kill it at life", and I agree with him, I've seen these women myself - they fucked quite good too. What Inna doesn't realize though, is that they're not at the level that would be equivalent to the Native American number 5 to 6. You'll never see a woman build a company like Amazon, you'll never see a woman contribute to the greater good of the entire human race - Thanks for that Electricity virgin Tesla!
Lastly, in what way are they slaying? Are they the bulk of all "successful businesswomen" that have a man setting them up for success behind the scenes? I personally know a woman who's a business owner who does nothing but paint herself as this no-nonsense bitch that plays it rough and can tussle with the best of them. Only that she can't. Her business was built by her husband, who btw already owns 3 and knows how things are done. Her situation is like the situation of that kid sitting next to the driver seat with his own play-pretend wheel where he has convinced himself that he's the one driving the car, whilst daddy is the one holding the fake wheel.
Obviously there are outliers, but I'd like to think that we tend to deal with "majorities" here on TRP.Read More
@adam-l Also, where did you find this idea that either 'all women are attracted to you or none'?
I've never seen that idea presented anywhere.
I've had plenty of women be 'fuck yeah' and plenty be 'fuck no', probably for a variety of reasons.
@adam-l Glasser didn't want to hear people's stories because he didn't find it relevant. He wanted people to focus on right here and right now and empower themselves to make new choices, not focus on past patterns.
In a sense, Glasser being a humanistic psychologist was anti-science and evo psyche. Humanists believed we all have the power to think and behave differently irrespective of past patterns or things like evolution.
So coming back to my main point of an absolute view of women being 'animals', Glasser might argue women are not tied to that general view as they are always capable of making new choices and behaviour.
This is why I am not a big fan of things like science and evo psyche when it comes to psychology. Always 'looking back' or through reductionism to determine he people will behave. It goes against someone like Glasser who might say 'fuck that, we are capable of behaving in a myriad of different ways, through a conscious decision.Read More
@INNASKILLZ2K20 The interesting part is that however "different" women are, when it comes to flirting they are all attracted to you - or none.
It might be different in psychotherapy, but maybe from a humanistic perspective, not so much different. For example, Glasser didn't even need to hear particular couples' story when consulting them. He knew that they all needed to do the exact same things irrespective of their "particular" circumstances.