mASF post by "esk6969"
posted on: mASF forum: General Discussion newsgroup, April 4, 2005On 4/7/05 3:01:00 PM, EazyE wrote:
>I was talking to
>an old relationship girl maybe
>to hang out with and meet
>other girls etc. I wanted her
>in my current life.
That sounds cool. You mean in a platonic sense?
>I was telling her of recent
>activities. She insulted me
>and my activities pretty hard.
What, specifically, did you tell her? Like how many chicks you fucked or
something? Their not dudes, their chicks. They're not that impressed by this.
She probably reacted emotionally because she still views you in a romantic
sense, even if you don't feel the same way about her. So she shit tested you.
Can't say how to specifically respond without knowing what she said - except
that, as with all shit tests, the best way to "pass" the test is to avoid any
kind of explanation of behavior on your part. Doing so immediately puts you
into a validating and supplicative frame.
>It upset me, I don't want it
>to, I want to not care what
>people think and go for what I
>want. How do you not care
>what others think?
>I am dead serious, I want this
>skill, I think it would really
>further my life in all
>respects.
Honestly, I don't think "not caring what other people think" is a desirable
trait to have. For one thing, *everyone* cares what other people think.
Anyone who says they don't is lying. Mainly because, humans are social
animals, and we need each other to accomplish our desires. Take ASF, for
instance. Everyone here does care, in a sense, what women think of them... the
whole idea is generated towards generating attraction, building rapport,
getting them to think of you in a sexual sense, telling stories or patterns
that get her to imagine having sex in your presence, and hopefully by
extension, imagine having sex with you, etc, not supplicating so that she
assumes higher value and then manipulates, neg-hits on higher value chicks so
that they feel lower value than you, etc.
All of this may seem contrary to the core idea from RJ that "I don't care what
they want (think)... only what they respond to", but I don't think that it is.
The "I don't care" part above doesn't mean that you don't still want to sarge
her. It just means that, regardless of what they *do* think, you are going to
employ techniques, and maintain a frame that will get her to change her
behavior (what they respond to), which will ultimately then also change what
they think. In other words, it is impossible for someone to act (respond) one
way, yet think another way, for a long period of time. This creates a
condition known as "cognitive dissonance", that the mind will not tolerate. It
will always seek an equilibrium between thoughts, and action, and responses.
If the responses are inconsistent with internal thoughts, then the thoughts
will eventually change. This is also, incidentally, how cults indoctrinate
people. Do a web search on "thought control" some time, interesting stuff.
Now, extend the idea of "I don't care what she thinks, only what she responds
to", outside the realm of PU, and into every area of your life. Instead of
caring, or not caring, or even considering, for that matter what *they* think,
instead focus on what they respond to. Engineer your behavior to elicit
specific responses, knowing that eventually over time cognitive dissonance will
take effect. This will change their thoughts as well, in order to mentally
coincide with their actions. Or, more broadly, so that their internal reality
coincides with their external reality (and vice versa.)
|
