Women are driven by money out of survival and men for social status

[Princess Arabia]

3 hours ago, numbersinarow said:

 

Females have evolved to work around the emotions of men and have their own strategies that don't evolve being as blunt or being as physical.

To successfully use these tactics, you have to be cold and calculating.

Emotions must come into play there as little as possible, maybe even not at all.

It's not that they're the emotional one and you're pushing their buttons to get something, it's that you're dealing with a cold and incredibly calculated system of discrimination, in which the other party is fully aware that their supply is rare and that your level of demand for it is high.

Let me understand something here, are you calling women cold and calculating, not sure if that's what you're saying.

[numbersinarow]

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

Let me understand something here, are you calling women cold and calculating, not sure if that's what you're saying.

My claim: To successfully use these tactics, you have to be cold and calculating.

[Princess Arabia]

1 minute ago, numbersinarow said:

My claim: To successfully use these tactics, you have to be cold and calculating.

Maybe to successfully use these tactics your opponent has to be weak and unsure of themselves.

[numbersinarow]

54 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Maybe to successfully use these tactics your opponent has to be weak and unsure of themselves.

You just admitted women do use them, and considering how generalized my claim was, anyone can see that even a strong opponent could be tricked by these tactics.

Using these tactics, or, what is the focus of discussion AKA having double standards, is on the other hand most certainly a surefire sign of personal weakness.

[numbersinarow]

Imagine someone turning that around and saying "Women who get physically hurt by men are weak." "Domestic abuse victims are weak." "Rape victims are weak."

[Princess Arabia]

50 minutes ago, numbersinarow said:

You just admitted women do use them, and considering how generalized my claim was, anyone can see that even a strong opponent could be tricked by these tactics.

Using these tactics, or, what is the focus of discussion AKA having double standards, is on the other hand most certainly a surefire sign of personal weakness.

I didn't admit to anything. I was showing you another way of thinking. I personally don't need to use deceiving tactics in relationships; if anything, I'm on the lookout to spot them.

Edited October 1 by Princess Arabia

[Princess Arabia]

40 minutes ago, numbersinarow said:

Imagine someone turning that around and saying "Women who get physically hurt by men are weak." "Domestic abuse victims are weak." "Rape victims are weak."

I don't know what tactics you're referring to. Your saying, "women are cold and calculating" means nothing. 8billion people are on the planet of which maybe half are women, of which some are happily in relationships, of which some are happily married, of which some are happily single, of which some view the opposite sex in positive ways, of which some hate the opposite sex, of which some love the opposite sex, of which some thinks the opposite sex is cold and calculating (both sexes). I could list a zillion things. Your opinion is just that, your opinion. Your experiences are just that experiences and your assumptions are just that, assumptions; doesn't mean they are true including this comment. What is more true is that we tend to experience our own beliefs and convictions.

Edited October 1 by Princess Arabia

[Princess Arabia]

44 minutes ago, numbersinarow said:

Imagine someone turning that around and saying "Women who get physically hurt by men are weak." "Domestic abuse victims are weak." "Rape victims are weak."

You have missed the point entirely. 

[numbersinarow]

30 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

I don't know what tactics you're referring to. Your saying, "women are cold and calculating" means nothing. 8billion people are on the planet of which maybe half are women, of which some are happily in relationships, of which some are happily married, of which some are happily single, of which some view the opposite sex in positive ways, of which some hate the opposite sex, of which some love the opposite sex, of which some thinks the opposite sex is cold and calculating (both sexes). I could list a zillion things. Your opinion is just that, your opinion. Your experiences are just that experiences and your assumptions are just that, assumptions; doesn't mean they are true including this comment. What is more true is that we tend to experience our own beliefs and convictions.

This is the most valueless comment I've seen on any forum. Re-read what I've said in relation to what Leo has said. Pretending that I need to be hyper-specific in order to make more of a statement than what I have is insane and could be done to literally any statement at all. What is more true is that we tend to experience our own beliefs and convictions? How about no, because you can experience what is true for everyone and know what is true for everyone, so I'm going to completely drag out a conversation trying to make you clarify what you mean.

No offense but I can't stop myself from wondering what happened to make a presumably previously healthy mind to turn this hostile and have this many problems with men.

27 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

You have missed the point entirely. 

The perfect example of what I am talking about. Can't argue? Just spout generic NPC nonsense at someone interpreting something in the only way that a sane human would.

[numbersinarow]

44 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

I didn't admit to anything. I was showing you another way of thinking. I personally don't need to use deceiving tactics in relationships; if anything, I'm on the lookout to spot them.

Wow...

Try to re-read my comment and see how it relates to Leo's comment over and over until you get it.

[Princess Arabia]

5 minutes ago, numbersinarow said:

This is the most valueless comment I've seen on any forum. Re-read what I've said in relation to what Leo has said. Pretending that I need to be hyper-specific in order to make more of a statement than what I have is insane and could be done to literally any statement at all. What is more true is that we tend to experience our own beliefs and convictions? How about no, because you can experience what is true for everyone and know what is true for everyone, so I'm going to completely drag out a conversation trying to make you clarify what you mean.

No offense but I can't stop myself from wondering what happened to make a presumably previously healthy mind to turn this hostile and have this many problems with men.

The perfect example of what I am talking about. Can't argue? Just spout generic NPC nonsense at someone interpreting something in the only way that a sane human would.

 Thank God for referencing and anyone re-reading our conversation from where I asked if you were referring to women as cold and calculating can see what I've said from then on has nothing to do with what you're saying here. Nothing I've said showed hostility and problems towards men and it's pretty clear to me you are projecting what you think of me and your ideas of me unto this conversation.

There are no phrases or comments that I've said to you in this conversation to have you make those remarks and I challenge you to quote verbatim anything I've said to you in this conversation that was showing hostility and/or problems with men. In fact, please do. I'd love to see what I've said for you to come to those conclusions. In fact, you calling women cold and calculated seems to point to having those issues.

[Princess Arabia]

19 minutes ago, numbersinarow said:

Wow...

Try to re-read my comment and see how it relates to Leo's comment over and over until you get it.

Maybe there's a miscommunication gap somewhere that I'm missing. But did you say I was hostile towards men and had a lot of problems with men. I'm not sure if you were referring to me when you said that. 

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, bambi said:

Do you genuinely believe all men are driven by calculating logic?

Id say 50% of men are highly emotional and illogical

It's a general pattern, not an absolute.

Edited October 1 by Leo Gura

[bambi]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's a general pattern, not an absolute.

The core pattern goes like this:

Pyschological type (as defined by Jung), dictates logical preference. Certain personalities types prioritize logic. More men in soceity currently have this logical personality types on average. But it is probaly 60/40 split

It is a complete fallacy to claim men are logical dominant vs females.

[Leo Gura]

39 minutes ago, bambi said:

It is a complete fallacy to claim men are logical dominant vs females.

It's not a fallacy. That's the distinction between masculine and feminine modes.

People have stopped understanding what masculine and feminine means.

This doesn't mean that women never use logic and it doesn't mean that men are perfectly logical, or that the logic isn't a gross distortion of reality.

Edited October 1 by Leo Gura

[Keryo Koffa]

31 minutes ago, bambi said:

It is a complete fallacy to claim men are logical dominant vs females.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, backwards rationalizing itself culturally into actuality.

[bambi]

46 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's not a fallacy. That's the distinction between masculine and feminine modes.

People have stopped understanding what masculine and feminine means.

This doesn't mean that women never use logic and it doesn't mean that men are perfectly logical, or that the logic isn't a gross distortion of reality.

It is a fallacy, there is no causation. That is the fallacy. Theres also hasty generalistion fallacy if you care to learn it.

Men can be either predominently masculine or femine, and same for women The truth is humans are having a varied and dynamic mix of femine and masucline qualities or traits. Even the traits themselves arent normalised and standardised. 

So the statemement Men are x is fallacious, there is no causality there.

Furhter I would argue these generalisaitons are toxic and not healthy to modern society.

[Leo Gura]

50 minutes ago, bambi said:

Furhter I would argue these generalisaitons are toxic and not healthy to modern society.

What's unhealthy for society is denying the obvious psychological differences between men and women.

When I say man, what I really mean is masculine. If a man is not masculine then what I say doesn't apply. Just because there are feminine men doesn't touch my point.

The meta problem here is that people don't understand the proper and important function of generalizations. You tell a stage Green a valid generalization and they instictively try to hairsplit it to death to satisfy their political social justice agenda and worldview.

Edited October 1 by Leo Gura

[bambi]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

What's unhealthy for society is denying the obvious psychological differences between men and women.

When I say man, what I really mean is masculine. If a man is not masculine then what I say doesn't apply. Just because there are feminine men doesn't touch my point.

The meta problem here is that people don't understand the proper and important function of generalizations. You tell a stage Green a valid generalization and they instictively try to hairsplit it to death to satisfy their political social justice agenda and worldview.

 

Okay now your goalpoasts are moving. Depending on how you are defining 'masculine' or 'feminine' and what attributes you are arbitrarily assigning, then perhaps.

Generalisations are simply heuristics, and in the way they have been used in this thread and other areas, they are reductive and oppresive, and dont create a clear or accurate picture of human psychology. And the meta-problem here for me is a deep misunerstnading of the implicit problems and trade offs with heuristics, which will only become apparent as one progresses toward stage teal and turqoise.

Your broad generalisations such that men are logical, are just not close to being true for someone at the higher levels, this heurisitical thinking is seen as sloppy, and mostly unhelpful for dealing with the current issues.

At some levels there are trends within male and female psychology, but there are as much differences as there are similarities, and the collatarel damage the generalisations and stereotypes cause, means using them categorically in the way you and others love to do is a deep flaw, only revealed at turqoise.

Ultimately there are deeper, more accurate ways of dealing with human psychology, and gender heuristics isnt one of them.

Edited October 2 by bambi

[Chadders]

@Alex4 As I mentioned your financial status is a secondary consideration. Raw attraction is emotional synergy

I didn’t say that women will be attracted to guys with resources only that it is a consideration. Women have a lot of choice! They want to know you’ve got your house in order financially even if you’re super attractive