mASF post by "Canes"
posted on: mASF forum: General Discussion newsgroup, May 5, 2005Hey Design,
Interesting post, and definitely something worth writing about.
On 5/2/05 10:53:00 AM, Design wrote:
>We each have some number of
>tools in our PU toolbox:...
>Our first instinct might be to
>label these failures of
>calibration. In some cases,
>that's true. More commonly,
>these are errors of KNOWLEDGE.
And, I'm sure you'd agree, errors of experience and applying said knowledge. A
lot of logical understanding comes out of just using something and seeing it
work in real life as opposed to reading the theory behind it. Suddenly, having
seen it work, you understand the theory behind it and why it works.
>So here's a question: consider
>the tools in your toolbox. Do
>you know what they are
>intended to accomplish? Do
>you understand WHY they are
>supposed to work? I don't
>mean do you have a "kinda
>sorta" feeling on the issue.
>I mean you can you verbalize
>it in precise terms?
This is a good and important question to ask yourself. When I first started
learning about the game, I didn't really understand anything, why anything
would work, etc. I didn't really understand what cocky and funny really did
for a while, what TD's comments about social value all meant, etc. Now it's
elementary.
>Let's take a basic basic
>example. Openers. How many
>people here really understand
>the distinction between direct
>and indirect openers? How
>many people really understand
>the relationship between
>direct and indirect openers
>and opinion openers? (Here's
>a tip: if you think opinion
>openers are necessarily
>indirect, you're wrong.) How
>many people really understand
>the reasoning behind going in
>indirect?
Maybe it's my own lack of experience talking, but as you started I sort of
assumed "yeah, I'm Canes, I know what indirect vs. direct is," but I don't
understand your view of it. Could you explain it for me?
>If you can't (correctly)
>answer these questions, you
>won't be able to use the
>tools.
See, I need this!
>Or how about another basic
>concept: Cocky & Funny. What
>is C&F? How is it distinct
>from playful teasing? What is
>its relationship to the three
>classifications of rapport?
>Why is the humor element so
>important? What is it meant
>to accomplish?
I'm still working on this one. At first, I simply thought C/F was just ALL
GAME and was all you needed. If you can enlighten me about your views on this
too?
>I anticipate a backlash from
>the minimalists among us.
I consider the process this way: Idealistic, learning new ideals, idealistic,
learning new ideals, idealistic. So I have no problem with many of these tools
as a catalyst to new and easier things.
For example, when starting in the game, I was one of the guys who figured I
just wanted a REALLY good girl to have and marry, etc. Yeah, I know. My
ideals changed, when I learned about evolution, how women ACTUALLY are, to
being a big time polygamist. This is starting to go BACK to the idea of the
one perfect woman out there, a standard I hold for any future MLTRs. Ideal,
learning new ideals, idealistic again. Very circular, but then again so is
life.
|
