Increasing popularity of friends-first approach

Post Reply New Topic

Disagree all you like. In summary, you're just "saying stuff".

Again, I think I'll take the word of my professors.

Not exactly. Go read the research on the visual cliff experiments.

As someone who has a Ph.D in Psychology, is a professor of Psychology, and teaches graduate level courses in Human Development, Personality, and Cognitive Psychology, I can say you are partially correct.

Some fear has been demonstrated to be learned. John Watson demonstrated this with his little Albert study. He was able to condition fear in little Albert of a white rabbit (cue Jefferson Airplane here) where the white rabbit was originally a neutral stimulus-it did not produce fear in Albert.

However, he was able to condition fear in little Albert by pairing the white rabbit with a loud noise, which did produce fear in little Albert. This was the Unconditioned Stimulus and Unconditioned Response. It was unlearned. Little Albert did not need to learn to be afraid of the loud noise (banging two metal rods together in this case), it was reflexive in him. Eventually little Albert did come to fear the white rabbit because of it being paired with the Unconditioned Stimulus of the noise. This made the white rabbit the Conditioned Stimulus and his fear of it the Conditioned Response.

As stated earlier also, behaviorism has found that some stimuli are easier to condition to certain responses than are other stimuli. We do seem to be innately primed for certain stimulus-response pairings, and this includes fear.

Behaviorism isn't the only theory in Psychology either. Evolutionary Psychology, with is an outgrowth of Sociobiology, has found that certain social behaviors do seem to be genetically programmed in humans. David Buss is one of the main figures in this area, and he has written extensively about innate programming and mating behaviors.

[
Behaviorism isn't the only theory in Psychology either. Evolutionary Psychology, with is an outgrowth of Sociobiology, has found that certain social behaviors do seem to be genetically programmed in humans. David Buss is one of the main figures in this area, and he has written extensively about innate programming and mating behaviors.

Oh, No!
My belief system is built on REASON, not FAITH.

BTW,
Could it be that you are a theist if the belief system you prioritise is FAITH-based?
Or was that simply a convenient go-to "casual" statement?

I advise we leave it to the "Titans" to battle it out.
Let us wait until they wear each other down and THEN go in for the kill, shall we?

Your argument?
You know "smart" ppl, hence, all you espouse is beyond reproach?

Well at least one of them is qualified

I can see why you'd pick that context to go with. Ole'!

However, my actual argument was, since I have been formally taught this stuff, I am more inclined to believe what I have been taught by professionals, than what (random internet person) claims.

At least ProfessorJohn actually cited some relevant credentials (much better than "I'm into history" and "I read stuff"), and actually got into the meat of some material, addressing points agreed upon, points in contention, and the reasoning behind them.

ProfessorJohn likely knows psychology much better than I do. He sounds like one of my professors. I am more likely to listen to him. Still not gonna listen to the (random person who "reads things") Even if ProfessorJohn is lying, he at least took the trouble to make a useful lie that adds validity to what he says. And I believe he said I was at least partially right. It's also worth mentioning that I'm not a psychologist, I'm a behaviorist. There will be some differences in approach.

I find this informative.
The question that begs to be answered is...
...Why are you so aggressive with ppl?

I'm not sure that the "friends first" approach often works at all. In my experience, when you go friends first, the other person thinks that you only want to be friends and when you try to date them later, they think that you were only friends to begin with in order to get into their pants, which feels manipulative. That's when people complain about being "friendzoned". It's better that you both know what your intentions are from the beginning, if it doesn't work out and you still want to remain friends afterwards then that's fine too.

Brief excerpt from Gen Z's dating revolution: Young people are adopting an old-fashioned solution for the humiliation and hassle of dating apps, by Daniel Cox, Business Insider, Mar 7, 2023:

Perhaps we have a NEW contender for "Smartest Person in the Room".

Off-topic:

As a professor of psychology, do you think it prudent for a stranger to maintain being skeptical as to your qualifications, since there is no validation at this point, erm, validating your assertion that you are indeed a professor of Psychology?

To be klear, I am not challenging you here.
Simply assessing...

Pax...

BTW,
Are you on the autistic spectrum?

I'm not sure that the "friends first" approach often works at all. In my experience, when you go friends first, the other person thinks that you only want to be friends and when you try to date them later, they think that you were only friends to begin with in order to get into their pants, which feels manipulative. That's when people complain about being "friendzoned". It's better that you both know what your intentions are from the beginning, if it doesn't work out and you still want to remain friends afterwards then that's fine too.

I hate friends first. It's so awkward when you ask your friend out and then you get rejected. I haven't openly asked any of my friends out but a couple of times I indirectly hinted at it (so as to reduce my risk of open rejection). I think they knew what I meant. Their indirect rejection of my indirect proportion felt so awkward. For one of those women our friendship quickly faded after that.