mASF post by "finalD"
posted on: mASF forum: Advanced Discussion, May 5, 2005Toecutter has some valid points. Also, I quibble with the instance in
which Prime Alpha said the following:
Prime Alpha wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> I highly suggest people start adopting a more empirical point of view:
> What I DID, and what HAPPENED. All these inner game» claims of "I
> thought I was an a$$hole roxxtar and girls were all over me" are
> beginning to irritate me.
>
> Just to remind y'all, my simple explanation to the "roxxstar" theorem
> is that the person visualizing this just made himself relaxed, and
> THAT caused girls to approach him, not any silly inner thoughts.
>
>
I just see something circular in the reasoning. Basically, the
"roxxstar" theorem IS about "silly inner thoughts." But those thoughts
can be EITHER (a) "I thought I was an asshole roxxstar" or (b) made
himself relaxed.
The premise Prime Alpha has, that he is somehow disagreeing with the
"theorem" (below), is problematic, because his replacement theory
operates on identical principles.
Those principles are, that internal thoughts somehow manifest themselves
in external behaviors which, in turn, communicate ("subcommunicate") to
the target female the concept of desirability.
In other words ... INNER GAME». Prime Alpha just wants to rename what we
are doing with inner game» as "feeling relaxed". Hell, who cares what you
call it? It's about THOUGHTS of confidence, motivation, relaxation,
directedness, non-neediness, etc. In the long run, quibbling over
whether you "believe" you are a rock star, or you merely THINK you
believe you are a rock star, are just silly demands for attention.
OK, enough on that. I also very much agree with Toecutter about the
"environment" of academia, and how it would never support studies that
revealed the "truth" about what females are attracted to ("truth" being
the notions that we at mASF generally espouse, of course!). My
experience with academics, and with academic pseudo-science as
propagated on the Discovery Channel and other venues, is that almost
inevitably the people who have a "neat theory" for how things work out,
are the people who get the funding and the air play. And generally (gee
what a surprise) their theory matches, almost identically, EXACTLY WHAT
SOCIETY TAUGHT THEM. They are simply regurgitating the ideas that their
culture tells them are "appropriate" to state. They in no way engage in
peer-reviewed or empirical searches for evidence or derivation of
conclusions via the scientific method.
The obvious parallel is the Victorian notion of brain-case measurement.
In the Victorian era, scientists, good people and bad people both,
believed -- genuinely believed -- that one method of measuring innate
intelligence was to check cranium size. Through "empirical" methods,
these scientists "proved" that Whites were inherently more intelligent
than Blacks. This is a ridiculous conclusion. First, the data were
flawed -- they used small-headed Blacks and big-headed Whites,
sometimes. Second, the conclusions were flawed -- the correlative that
they used, to compare intelligence to brain size, was AN INTELLIGENCE
TEST. Of COURSE people who do poorly on an intelligence test are going
to be testing poorly for intelligence. Geez. So, basically, by creating
a group that was bad at one particular form of reasoning, they created a
group that they then CALLED "unintelligent." They failed to accomodate
such factors as communication in a foreign language, etc. etc. We now
"know" (equally tenuously) that different races don't necessarily have
different mental abilities at all. And for a variety of reasons, the
Victorians' problematic science is now rejected.
But the point remains, that Victorian scientists THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING
SCIENCE. They had insufficient self-awareness to step outside their
cultural mainstrean and state, "well, the data ACTUALLY point to the
idea that Whites and Blacks have an equal propensity for intelligence."
Whatever their culture TAUGHT THEM was true, they THEN (after the fact)
invented a false science to prove.
Not to say that the scientific method doesn't work wonderfully on
predictable quantifiable items, like chemicals in a jar.
But Dr. Laura and Dr. Pat and Dr. Phil are all announcing crap about how
women "naturally" want a man who is a good provider. And yet, their
ONLY scientific evidence for this idea, is the fact that their culture
told them that this was true. Nobody CAN test this "empirically." You
cannot adequately create a control group. In the culture that is the
most materially wealthy and spiritually bereft in the HISTORY OF
MANKIND, people (it's no surprise) often mate on the basis of money
alone. And gee, again no surprise, those who appoint themselves as
official observers and chroniclers declare that people choose to mate
on the basis of money.
They haven't read literature. They don't know history. They are very bad
at creative thinking. They are making the same mistakes as the Victorian
scientists, by assuming that their own time is 'right' and that,
therefore, all which supports current convention must be innate,
inherently biological, true, God-given, natural. It ISN'T.
Women in other cultures, at other times, have responded to other
things. Plenty of literature points out the manner of the "voracious"
sexmonster, the sex-starved female of Restoration drama, or of "Moll
Flanders" for example, heroines who would die to get a good fuck and
really don't care what kind of money their partner has. This evidence
fits no "neat" theory current today, and therefore only rarely appears
on the Discovery Channel as representative of the "true" way for humans
to behave "naturally." But those humans were just as "natural" as we are
alive today.
Just thinking points. Beware of calling for empirical evidence in a
field that can only be proven through speculation and philosophy.
Empiricism is, in itself, an incredibly AFC tenet -- "prove it" says
the anti-social Asperger's dork when his friend says "Dude, chicks don't
want to date you because you don't bathe!" Data, and a fascination for
the reducible, are both non-PUA items. PUAs go intuitively with the
flow. If Myers-Briggs says that "naturally" you're an S instead of an
N, start learning method-acting. Get OUT of your need for data and move
on to your ability to dance the mating dance.
--
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in
higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
Friedrich Nietzsche
--
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in
higher esteem those who think alike than those who think
differently.
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
