Increasing popularity of friends-first approach

Post Reply New Topic

Umm actually no, I'm talking about external validity of empirical observations not interventions.
Raw statistics on it's own has limitations in predicting human behaviour (I think you know this but in order to be a contrarian you choose to skip my point) but becomes more useful when you align it against qualitative observations in representative test subjects.

My younger self was spoilt for choice and I had my sights aimed at Woman A. Woman B (in my mind at the time) was just a friend at the time whom I observed had flaws which I magnified out of proportion.

In retrospect I was harsh/judgemental of Woman B. She was actually quite pretty but as with young women that age had self-esteem problems (hence her bulimia). As I subsequently discovered she worked in a upmarket massage parlour but perhaps it wasn't just for the money. Perhaps it gave her validation that men wanted her (and quite honestly I think she would have had her pick in our social circles).

Last edited by Cornflake on 25 Mar 2023, 8:25 am, edited 1 time in total.: Gross comparison removed

Friends banter.
We are not friends, hence mocking.

I am not sure why, but the term "dick measuring" comes to mind with you two.
Will we be getting back on topic anytime soon?

Has Wrong Planet changed so much in the last couple of weeks?
I am surprised it is permissible for men to use such comparisons these days.

"Women are like quality or plane chocolates", someone said in another thread.
Now described as "sportscars" with or without a finely tuned engine and new or second hand.

Don't get me wrong.
I am not asking this thread to be locked.
I am simply confused about what is and isn't permissible, these days.

Nice to see the posts are back on topic, btw.
Plz continue.
Vahrooooom.

I think it's because I am talking about how I thought of women back in the 1990s. I would never entertain such thoughts in 2023 otherwise my wife would have me over hot coals.

It seems like you're slicing my quotes into fortune-cookie-sized sound-bites in order to find something easier to strawman and counter. It's also a bit ironic that you've accused me of missing your point, while totally ignoring most of mine.

Yes, I do know that stats have limits to predicting human behavior - you know I know this cos I've been saying that all along, even in other threads, where you argued with me about it - nice job flipping that around though - that's the whole point of the post you chopped off to focus on the conclusion. Whatever happened to you, happened to YOU. ONCE. It is unique to you, cos even someone who goes through similar with still be in a different situation, even if for no other reason than they're not you. For example, they might be capable of saying "no" or shrugging and walking away.

Situations may be unique (except for minor twists across multiverses) but experiences resonate and seem relatable because there is a genetic component in how we/other people respond to the same external stimulus.

Twin studies on siblings separated at birth show they have remarkably similar trajectories/decisions even taking into account how different environments changes gene expression (epigenetics)

It is mocking to refer to someone by their own self-identified terms, and to respect their preferred language and viewpoint? Would you like me to go find the threads where you personally have used these terms? I am using your own words, which you use to identify yourself. It literally says "Oracle" right in your signature. Should I have used your full title? The Oracle of Truth?

Also, there's a whole world on interactions besides "banter" and "mocking". It's not like those are the only two options. For example, I could be trying to win you over by adopting your chosen language.



I'm sure Freud would have a few ideas as to why you would be thinking about penis length.

It's funny the way you complain about going off-topic, AND insist on bantering - or mocking - depending on which context you feel like going by at the moment

At any rate, I feel like the discussion is at least somewhat on-topic, as it does relate to why you should get to know people, i.e., be friends, before you commit to them for several years, regardless of how pretty they look. The occasional tangent occurs, such as bringing up penis length (is that mocking or not, o mighty oracle?) - but for the most part is does relate to how one approaches relationships.

Damn, you like to talk.

Well, modern cognitive behavioral science says no, there isn't a genetic component to how people respond to external stimuli, and that it is not universal. The studies that were used to support that belief have been replicated without success, using updated methods to remove flaws from the original experiments. Not to mention the very existence of the phenomenon of Inappropriate Affect, and the fact that affect and emotional response has been demonstrated to be highly variable, depending on several external situational variables.

But I'm sure you have articles on hand to demonstrate these claims. Ones that include actual data, and not just more claims being made, if you would. Else I feel compelled to take the word of my professors.

*Write.

It's easy enough that it just kinda happens.

Damn, you like to talk back.

You keep replying. That makes it a conversation

Have you ALWAYS imagined you were the smartest person in the room?

I don't have much imagination, sorry. You'll have to do it for me. Perfect! ^ Just like that!

And anyways, shouldn't the Oracle of Truth already know the answer to that?

Also, you literally call yourself the Oracle of Truth...

You're not being very on-topic, either, despite your own requests.

First, I'll take you back for a history lesson (after all, I am history buff). Psychology has it's roots in philosophy. More specifically phenomenology. At it's heart,the study of “phenomena”: appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things, thus the meanings things have in our experience.

Among the early pioneers of testing phenomenology was William Wundt at Harvard Psychology in the 1800s who believed every person could reflect on their thoughts in response to an external stimulus in a process called introspection.

The thoughts revealed could reconstruct a person's consciousness. While on the surface this seemed unscientific it gave rise to (among other things) Freud's psychoanalysis, Gestalt and kick started research into cognitive behavioural theory. Phenomenology suggests the human experience is largely universal in that there are universal themes in terms of emotion, motivation and drivers that compel all humans to think similar thoughts.

A simple example I will leave you with is when a person is walking in the woods and is confronted by a growling bear towering over them. Every person responds the same their fight/flight activation kicks in and we go into survival mode and run the heck out of there. As situations become more ambiguous it becomes harder to predict how each person will respond? but some things are basic.

When it comes to a cis-man seeking cis-female companionship the motivation is always the same. If you put this man in a situation where he has to persevere and endure friendship then over time he experiences sexual frustration. It isn't rocket science. It's biology. My point is if the investment the cis-man makes in a relationship isn't reciprocated from the cis-female then every man in this situation will feel a certain sense of frustration. This is not difficult to predict.
How they respond will of course vary. An intelligent man will cut links and move on quickly and not waste time. More naive individuals (like me) will stick around thinking "I'm going to win her over".

I am being serious here.
Are you saying you can't have deep friendships with women?
That there will always be sexual tension getting in the way?