Natasha Tori Maru

To clarify - I am not objecting to the quality of your reasoning. You are correct that speculation isn't inherently illegitimate. I am objecting to the fact that you apparently presented an inference about OP's internal state with more certainty than the available evidence warrants. It remains that you speculated - "educated guess". This is unnecessary and weakens your argument because it's another speculation. There is zero evidence for this. ____ Obviously you don't have to take this on board, but attributing an internal psychological state to someone and then building a question around that inference sort of shoots you in the foot if you want to engage in charitable, good faith conversation. It is a failure to relate to the person and can polarise them against you (put them in the defensive). And if they reply with some charged emotional defence at being "psychoanalysed" (or state inference), it can be very easy to use the defensive posture as more evidence for your inference (closed loop, self sealing model). It is a huge caveat to approaching interactions without asking neutral, open ended questions prior to labelling someone as emotionally compromised/jealous/envious/feeling negative or what-have-you. I just wouldn't personally prematurely convert a psychological hypothesis into the premise of your interaction for the above reasons. I make this mistake very often myself, which might be why I saw it when you posted.

@LordFall you are speculating. You even gave evidence for your speculation. Do you know OP was triggered? No. Hence, speculation.

This is framed upon a purely speculation based psychoanalysis with very little basis of evidence based on what OP stated.

We were asked our opinion. Did you think I was giving dating advice? This was not the intention.

@Eskilon I think your definition can be coherent because: So, if this is how you frame authenticity - it is sound to me. Metaphysical authenticity. My approach was more broad but definitely more psychological. If you use another definition of self - ie the small self - that arises chiefly within the social domain, one's definition may differ. Suddenly you operate from a set of values and incentive structures that you use to define yourself - these pieces act to shape authenticity, which can loop directly back into integrity (I might call this relational authenticity if I want to get really nuanced). I am hedging toward authenticity being domain specific. This feels like a stronger model than authenticity being a single global trait. The dyad @aurum and I engaged in elaborated on this. I think it is a larger and more complex idea than initial inspection might reveal.

@BlessedLion interesting points regarding sexual signalling and dress. When I'm looking for a long-term partner, I want to maximise the quality of information I get about a man's interest, not just maximise the amount of male attention I receive. And while dressing in a standard provocative manner risks attracting a man who might overly value me for my appearance, it isn't a guarantee he doesn't also value other aspects. This is where courtship becomes a second phase of filtering for me. I think presentation can be used as an initial screening strategy without treating it as a definitive character test. This is also why I am not totally averse to being cold approached. The interaction after is just another level of filter.

@Monster Energy cest la vie

I mean, applies to me as well ☺️ That's on you. You either choose to accept or not.

It's not about me, though. I am sorry if what I said caused offense. But you need to do better.

Dude. Stop making nasty character judgements.

@Monster Energy you sound paradigm locked. Enjoy

Hard agree. I would argue it's almost necessary prior to discovering the environmentally safe stuff. Usually the healthy fuel discovery is a serendipitous thing while engaging in toxic fuel consumption - tangential discussion though 🤐

@Joshe you sound like you aren't afflicted with the "should" syndrome in general, though. Most people love that toxic fuel ⛽

This is changing the category of the claim. Not what I was saying.

I think @Xonas Pitfall nailed it. Did you truly not know what a falsifiable model was? Or did you want someone's personal definition?