Increasing popularity of friends-first approach

Post Reply New Topic

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".

When it comes to a cis-man seeking cis-female companionship the motivation is always the same.

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:


The article goes on to give various reasons for this.

I've always considered "friends first" to be the "right" approach, personally. I understand that others don't, or are happy to mix it up and go with "person I randomly met" experiences, but that's never really clicked with me as an option.

To me it's always seemed like the more respectful, connected, trust-building way of forming a relationship, and even the "natural" way of forming a relationship, based on a mutual connection that grows over time. It would certainly make me feel more comfortable, knowing that I and a potential partner already understand each other, know each other's quirks, know we enjoy each other's company, and so on.

On the other hand, in online discussions about dating practices, gender relations, and suchlike, I tend to hear conflicting views. Some say that approaching women you don't know is disrespectful, others disagree. Some suggest that trying to upgrade a friendship is a sign that you were never friends in the first place but simply wanted to charm your way into a woman's underwear under false pretences. Some say that you should express interest as soon as possible to show what it is you're looking for in this social bond you're trying to form. Others say that's objectification.

Then there's the dreaded "friend zone" where you've developed feelings which turn out to be unrequited. Or things can get awkward and the dynamic can change after you've expressed a wish to move to something more involved but the person you want to do it with doesn't want to join you in that.

Hell if I know what's what. I always thought the upgraded friendship was the way it was always supposed to work, but for every dating truth you'll find another one which contradicts it, and even paints you as a terrible misogynist. I really do hate the present social environment. At least 20 years ago, if I were to make a mistake, it'd be a largely innocent mis-step. Now it seems anything you do (particularly as someone without the experience to overcome the negative messaging) is a sign of disrespect, discrimination, and harassment against women, no matter how good your intentions.

Cognitive behaviorism posits that any appearance of a "genetic" or "instinctual" response, is actually a product of cultural conditioning. The average adult in modern culture, even having never seen a bear in real life, has likely been exposed to the existence of bears, or bear attacks, in media and pop culture, and learned to fear bears cos culture teaches us they are dangerous.

However, absent that conditioning, all manner of response is possible, beside just fight or flight (or freeze).

Disagree. That video proves nothing as the bear seemed more scared of the boy, implying that bears have a genetic memory and instinct. This would strongly suggest the "cultural conditioning" argument is not entirely valid. Also that was a small bear not a large adult 1500lbs bear. Also, if the bear was growling and showing their teeth then the genetic memory instinct would kick in due to millions of years of evolution. In summary, there is some degree of "cultural conditioning" and most have concluded its about a 50/50 mixture of nature and nurture.

More recently with the likes of B.F Skinner, et al, behavior is recognized as individual responses to individual situations, and that while there may be a "genetic memory" for things like "eat" or "mate", it does not extend to things like "fear".

[Cognitive behaviorism posits that any appearance of a "genetic" or "instinctual" response, is actually a product of cultural conditioning. The average adult in modern culture, even having never seen a bear in real life, has likely been exposed to the existence of bears, or bear attacks, in media and pop culture, and learned to fear bears cos culture teaches us they are dangerous.

Modern cognitive behavioral psychology disagrees with you, and has invalidated your bear analogy, too. More recently with the likes of B.F Skinner, et al, behavior is recognized as individual responses to individual situations, and that while there may be a "genetic memory" for things like "eat" or "mate", it does not extend to things like "fear".

studies in babies and young animals suggest our brains are wired to be wary of high places.

Plz excuse my interrupting you two, but isn't a fear of heights instinctual?
Perhaps I took your comment out of context?



https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... nstinctual

Oh brother BF Skinner is not recent. He's a creature from the 1950s behaviouralist school of thought.
Skinner and Watson believed in the black box concept where all unconcious thought was relegated to a black box because (they believed) you can't verify a person's individual thought. They also made a now discredited assumption that all human learning comes from classical conditioning and operant conditioning. I'm afraid you need to get with the times.

The behaviourists tried to discredit psychoanalysis and qualitative introspection but couldn't explain why psychoanalysis is actually just as effective as CBT in improving a person's mental illness.

Secondly I pointed out history to help educate your incredibly narrow view that raw statistics is the only way to validate how humans behave (I notice you have been covertly trying to back track your boasting claims as if you know this subject but sorry, you are no more a psychologist than anyone else here. Please stop pretending because you (claim) to talk to university professors).

All of this is designed to invalidate personal experience as psychologically important. You want sources yhou can google themselves as I have detected your only sole purpose is trolling me.

He keeps pretending to be a psychologist

Plz excuse my interrupting you two, but isn't a fear of heights instinctual?
Perhaps I took your comment out of context?

Quite frequently, extremely young children and animals will happily walk right off a ledge, until AFTER they LEARN that it's a bad, painful, idea.

You're the Oracle. You tell me.

But I'll be sure to ask most birds, many arboreal animals, bungee jumpers, skydivers, trapeze artists, hang-gliders, pilots, base jumpers, flight-suit enthusiasts, cliff divers, or, pending a time machine, the Native American "Skywalkers", if I get the opportunity

Quite frequently, extremely young children and animals will happily walk right off a ledge, until AFTER they LEARN that it's a bad, painful, idea.

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.