I finally figured out the answer to the question 'What do women want?'

[Buck Edwards]

21 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

No, not all women. 

Women whose authentic priority is relationships, who are intellectually smart, who are feminine, who have been raised to be 'independent', who don't fundamentally hate men in terms of mindset, who are ambitious, who have some self-awareness and who have healed trauma around men controlling them behave the way I'm describing. 

• Those whose authentic priority isn't relationships will have loose attachments and will date loosely. They're better for friends-with-benefits arrangements than LTRs. 
• Those who aren't intellectually smart are better for one-night stands than LTRs. Most 'club hoes' fall into this category, there's no scope for companionship with them. 
• Those who haven't been raised to be 'independent' probably just don't go out enough cuz their family traps them at home doing home-making, so you don't bump into them outside. 
• Those who aren't ambitious are going to cut the wind from your sails when you're being ambitious and they won't respect your dreams, so things won't sustainably work with them. 
• Those who aren't self-aware will not tell you what they really want, they'll use manipulations to get their way in relationships. Not trustworthy, the relationship-environment will turn into an anxious minefield. A relationship with such a person will spiral out of control due to arguments and fights, even if the transaction somehow works out. 
• And, those who haven't healed their trauma/who fundamentally hate men - you just stay away from them. They're not worth a single brain-cell of yours. 

This list is funny. It's like you're deciding what should be done with women, in reality you absolutely can't. It's not up to you to decide what a woman will want or how she will behave. You're being clueless to reality. You might make up your mind about a certain woman and she might have already decided to leave the bond with you. You cannot frame and set up such things. A relationship is highly fluid and whatever happens is decided by time and events and emotions on both sides. It's not a robot you're controlling. You are building castles in the air. 

Wise up and actually start dating and meet women and even then it's not guaranteed but you will have a certain idea of how things are. You will have general attraction patterns. It will help you improve how to talk and what to talk. Or avoid common traps, like for example women dating solely for money. Without dating, you wouldn't know compatibility. 

[CARDOZZO]

@mr_engineer 

You’re a well-educated man.

But your systems engineering/analytical skills are messing you up regarding dating.

You deserve a good woman and you’re searching for that, I appreciate it.

It seems that you want to be a sniper to give one perfect shot to find your woman.

It can happen, but it’s not realistic enough.

[something_else]

20 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

You gotta roll with what you know, right?! Being dissatisfied with what I know and saying that 'I have a severe lack of information' takes away from my self-confidence and my game. I'd rather take pride in what I know. 

But you don't know very much about this topic. Taking pride in what you know here is self-delusion. It is wiser to accurately assess your skills/knowledge/experience than pride yourself into thinking you are an expert on a topic you don't really know much about.

20 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

When you say 'it can't be mapped out logically', this is a limiting-belief that complicates the whole process. If you just set the rules and work accordingly, things become very simple and straightforward. 

You actually don't know if it's a limiting belief or not. You also don't know if things will become straightforward if you only think hyper-logically about this. You are assuming both of these things.

It seems that you think because this approach works in other areas of your life (engineering) it will work here, which is fallacy. You're approaching relationships like a science when they are much more like an art.

20 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

If you read romance-novels, they always talk about the 'rich client/CEO who came to meet their boss'

Ehhm, do they? In my experience + some googling, most rom-coms/novels seem to be about love triumphing over materialism or money. At least where I live. Maybe where you live they are different. But 'always' is certainly the wrong word to use here either way.

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by something_else

[mr_engineer]

49 minutes ago, something_else said:

But you don't know very much about this topic. Taking pride in what you know here is self-delusion. It is wiser to accurately assess your skills/knowledge/experience than pride yourself into thinking you are an expert on a topic you don't really know much about.

Is this just condescension for its own sake or is there a point to it? 

49 minutes ago, something_else said:

You actually don't know if it's a limiting belief or not. You also don't know if things will become straightforward if you only think hyper-logically about this. You are assuming both of these things.

It seems that you think because this approach works in other areas of your life (engineering) it will work here, which is fallacy. You're approaching relationships like a science when they are much more like an art.

What could go wrong if I think about this hyper-logically? 

49 minutes ago, something_else said:

Ehhm, do they? In my experience + some googling, most rom-coms/novels seem to be about love triumphing over materialism or money. At least where I live. Maybe where you live they are different. But 'always' is certainly the wrong word to use here either way.

I'm talking about the rom-coms pitched to women, not to men. The ones pitched to men do, in fact, show 'love triumphing over materialism', where the skinny nerd gets the girl over the jock, cuz 'love triumphs over materialism', 'he's more sensitive and loving than the jock'. 

But, in the ones pitched to women, they show a well-set, well-built, financially stable guy who also happens to be emotionally sensitive (lol, that's just not the reality for most well-set guys, you gotta be a ruthless killer to be that rich, unless you have a contribution-based Life-Purpose, in which case the protagonist/superhero is the man and not the woman), who takes her on expensive dates/vacations/they meet at a party in Miami or something where he's the host/very close to the host. And, the plot is about some emotional drama that happens with his ex, where his ex and the female protagonist are making each other jealous and then, he sees how much she loves her, how 'authentically feminine' she is, as opposed to the shallow ex who just wears push-up bras to look hot/who has a rich background herself. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by mr_engineer

[something_else]

1 hour ago, mr_engineer said:

Is this just condescension for its own sake or is there a point to it? 

The point is exactly what I wrote.

1 hour ago, mr_engineer said:

What could go wrong if I think about this hyper-logically? 

Metaphorically, the same thing that would go wrong if you thought about boxing hyper-logically for 5 years, had no actual experience physically boxing, and then fought in a real boxing match.

Or sat theorising about graphic design for 5 years, did no actual drawing, and then took on a graphic designer job.

In both cases you are not going to significantly improve your chances of success by spending those 5 years analysing each field hyper-logically. Relationships are very similar.

You can and should think logically about relationships, that is part of your role as a man, but you need the actual experience to make the logical thinking worthwhile. Otherwise you're just mentally-masturbating in your bedroom.

1 hour ago, mr_engineer said:

I'm talking about the rom-coms pitched to women, not to men

Almost no rom-coms or romance novels are pitched towards men, lol.

Rom-coms cover a massive range of plots, not just this finance dynamic you are focusing on. Different plots to cater to different women with different preferences.

[mr_engineer]

49 minutes ago, something_else said:

Metaphorically, the same thing that would go wrong if you thought about boxing hyper-logically for 5 years, had no actual experience physically boxing, and then fought in a real boxing match.

People train for a couple of years before entering a ring. 

49 minutes ago, something_else said:

Or sat theorising about graphic design for 5 years, did no actual drawing, and then took on a graphic designer job. 

In both cases you are not going to significantly improve your chances of success by spending those 5 years analysing each field hyper-logically. Relationships are very similar.

People go to college for 4-5 years and just study theory before getting their first job. It works out fine for them. 

49 minutes ago, something_else said:

You can and should think logically about relationships, that is part of your role as a man, but you need the actual experience to make the logical thinking worthwhile. Otherwise you're just mentally-masturbating in your bedroom.

You have to learn a lot of theory to make a relationship work. You have to know and understand what 'compatibility' means as a concept, what 'love' means, what 'masculinity' and 'femininity' mean, what 'protection' means, what 'teamwork' means, what 'belonging' means, what 'community' means, what 'family' means, what 'emotional needs' are, what 'significance' means. 

Even though I haven't jumped directly into a relationship, I have practically seen and observed how these concepts play out in real life. That's what my modelling is based on. I'm in the process of creating something that doesn't exist yet. You don't just 'get' relationships in the marketplace by paying money for it, you gotta create it. And it takes a lot of thinking to get it right, to make it work. 

Calling this mental-masturbation is like saying that 'Thomas Edison mentally masturbated in his lab for 50 years, failing to make the lightbulb work for thousands of times, before he made it work.' 

And, don't underestimate the negative consequences of getting into a relationship with the wrong person. That's not smart, actually, it could destroy your life. Your health, your money, everything could go down the drain with the wrong decision. Your advice basically sounds like 'when you're starting a business, don't think about the problems that could come up and how you're going to solve them, oh no. Just go for it, just invest everything you've got into a business, no matter how bad the idea is. If you lose everything and you die in the process, well, at least, you learned something! And don't talk to anyone about the practical difficulties of having a business, don't have a plan, just take action. If you die, we will have a great time cremating you.' 

49 minutes ago, something_else said:

Almost no rom-coms or romance novels are pitched towards men, lol.

Rom-coms cover a massive range of plots, not just this finance dynamic you are focusing on. Different plots to cater to different women with different preferences.

Even Cinderella has a 'prince charming' in it. It's mostly kings, princes, CEOs. 

The only times I've seen a female-focused movie show a man with subpar success is when he's either the butt of a joke, or to demonize him as a 'bad deadbeat husband'. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by mr_engineer

[Sincerity]

@mr_engineer You're just afraid of the experience of a relationship. You learn relationships by RELATING, not by thinking or reading about relating.

You learn math most by DOING math, not reading textbooks endlessly. It's like You're saying "I have to read all the textbooks first and only then I can get to actually doing math!!!!". Nah man. Just go for it.

You will spin a thousand excuses when You're afraid. Because that's what You do. And so do I.

And it's okay - just don't let the fear rule You. That's exactly what's happening now - You're in fear and You have a ton of justifications for why it's not fear, why it's rational, why You shouldn't take action, beliefs about how women are a certain way, etc.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Sincerity

[something_else]

31 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

People train for a couple of years before entering a ring. 

That is my point  they don't sit around thinking and theorising, they train

31 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

People go to college for 4-5 years and just study theory before getting their first job. It works out fine for them. 

Most college degrees don't teach you shit about how to get anything done in the real world because they are so theory focused.

If you study something where college degree is actually required and useful like engineering or medicine then they are combining the practical and theoretical stuff in your degree and not just teaching you theory.

31 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Even though I haven't jumped directly into a relationship, I have practically seen and observed how these concepts play out in real life

How have you seen how these concepts play out in real life practically? Most of these aspects you listed in a relationship will play out behind closed doors where you cannot observe them.

Quote

Even though I haven't jumped directly into a relationship

You don't have to jump directly into a relationship, you should do it when you are ready. What is silly is doing all of this theorising and talking like you are an authority on relationships before you have had a single one.

Quote

Calling this mental-masturbation is like saying that 'Thomas Edison mentally masturbated in his lab for 50 years, failing to make the lightbulb work for thousands of times, before he made it work.' 

The analogy for you is more like:

Imagine your surgeon telling you he's never done any surgery before, but he is also telling you he is an expert because he's read all the surgery textbooks for 5 years. You'd not take what he was saying very seriously and would ask for a different surgeon.

Quote

Even Cinderella has a 'prince charming' in it. It's mostly kings, princes, CEOs. 

'Mostly' is just categorically the wrong word to use here. There are some where the man is a king, prince or CEO. But it is not most.

Overall to me it seems like you need to map out, plan, and control every aspect of a relationship before you have one, which is a recipe for disaster. You cannot control a relationship like that. It is not in the nature of how a successful relationship works.

Edited July 18, 2023 by something_else

[mr_engineer]

10 minutes ago, Sincerity said:

Get this. You learn math most by DOING math, not reading textbooks endlessly. It's like You're saying "I have to read all the textbooks first and only then I can get to actually doing math!!!!". Nah man. Just go for it.

If it's a shitty textbook, I do, in fact, have to read another one and another one until the subject-matter makes sense to me. Then, I get to 'doing the math'. In fact, the process of finding the right textbook is a huge struggle in something as complicated as relationships. You have to make your own theory, actually. Cuz in math no matter who you are, 2+2 is still 4. But, relationships are very personal. 

3 minutes ago, something_else said:

That is my point  they don't sit around thinking and theorising, they train

Yeah, but that training doesn't show up as a W on their CV until they get it after 2 years. Also, until they have their first W, do you really know whether they were 'thinking and theorizing' or 'training'?! 

4 minutes ago, something_else said:

How have you seen how these concepts play out in real life practically? Most of these aspects you listed in a relationship will play out behind closed doors where you cannot observe them.

Socializing, speed-dating events, spending time with family, going to community-events and participating in them, connecting with women, making masculine/feminine dynamics work, going to salsa-class and figuring out the cultural obstacles in the masculine/feminine dynamics, doing trauma-work with therapists, having shadow-work groups in which we did trauma-resolution together, etc. Takes some observation but you can learn a lot just in everyday interactions with people, it's not that big of a deal. 

13 minutes ago, something_else said:

You don't have to jump directly into a relationship, you should do it when you are ready. What is silly is doing all of this theorising and talking like you are an authority on relationships before you have had a single one.

The thing is that whatever little experience I've had, happens to contradict what people who have been in fifty-year marriages say. Most people are utterly deluded about relationships. There is a severe lack of theory on it. In fact, when people like you say that it's not even needed, I find that ridiculous. 

I'm going to theorize based on whatever little experience I have. No, I'm not building castles in air. You don't have to believe me. But, I will not let you take away my right to make sense of the mind-fuckery that today's relationships are. 

16 minutes ago, something_else said:

The analogy for you is more like:

Imagine your surgeon telling you he's never done any surgery before, but he is also telling you he is an expert because he's read all the surgery textbooks for 5 years. You'd not take what he was saying very seriously and would ask for a different surgeon.

He's more of an expert than a 1600s doctor who's done a lot of so-called 'surgeries' by doing blood-letting. When a new paradigm comes along through the new generation, this 'lack of experience' argument is a very common one that the established status-quo uses to discredit them. 

Relationships today are a shitshow. And it's all because there's no proper paradigm to make sense of them. Yall can sit on the sidelines and do nothing about this and say that 'this is an impossible problem to solve'. But please, let me do something about this. 

[something_else]

49 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Socializing, speed-dating events, spending time with family, going to community-events and participating in them, connecting with women, making masculine/feminine dynamics work, going to salsa-class and figuring out the cultural obstacles in the masculine/feminine dynamics, doing trauma-work with therapists, having shadow-work groups in which we did trauma-resolution together, etc. Takes some observation but you can learn a lot just in everyday interactions with people, it's not that big of a deal. 

I mean that's a decent start I suppose, but you're still mostly going off bits and pieces of experience from the sidelines.

If I was going to take relationship advice I'd still go with someone who's been in 2 to 5 long term relationships over any of this.

52 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

The thing is that whatever little experience I've had, happens to contradict what people who have been in fifty-year marriages say

My little experience as a novice programmer may contradict what a senior developer of 20 years has to say about programming, but it could be because I'm so inexperienced that I can't actually comprehend why he says what he says. You're experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect right now.

You are right though, people who are in 50 year marriages may also have shitty opinions on relationships, especially if that marriage has been their only long term relationship or they live in a conservative country where they were forced or pressured into it.

58 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

He's more of an expert than a 1600s doctor who's done a lot of so-called 'surgeries' by doing blood-letting.

You need theory + practice for success. Both of these imaginary doctors are equally likely to kill you if they perform surgery on you.

1 hour ago, mr_engineer said:

Relationships today are a shitshow. And it's all because there's no proper paradigm to make sense of them. Yall can sit on the sidelines and do nothing about this and say that 'this is an impossible problem to solve'. But please, let me do something about this. 

Good luck to you and your paradigm shifting ideas

[mr_engineer]

1 hour ago, something_else said:

I mean that's a decent start I suppose, but you're still mostly going off bits and pieces of experience from the sidelines.

If I was going to take relationship advice I'd still go with someone who's been in 2 to 5 long term relationships over any of this.

You mean, someone who screwed up 2-5 relationships?! That's a huge red-flag for me, actually. If you're going to screw things up, why not take baby-steps first?! 

When you say 'someone who's been through 2-5 relationships', I hear 'someone who's been through 2-5 break-ups' and I mentally dismiss that. I don't want 2-5 break-ups. Do you?! 

1 hour ago, something_else said:

My little experience as a novice programmer may contradict what a senior developer of 20 years has to say about programming, but it could be because I'm so inexperienced that I can't actually comprehend why he says what he says. You're experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect right now.

Or, it could be because the senior developer is so senior that the languages of their time don't exist anymore and they didn't keep up with the times enough to understand the languages of our time. 

1 hour ago, something_else said:

You need theory + practice for success. Both of these imaginary doctors are equally likely to kill you if they perform surgery on you.

I'd trust the person who only knows theory. At least, there's a possibility that they won't screw it up. But, someone who doesn't know theory, who's just slashing you with a knife, will, for sure, screw it up. Then, they'll be like 'I have a lot of experience dismembering people's organs with my knife. My body-count is 11. What's yours?!' 

Edited July 18, 2023 by mr_engineer

[something_else]

3 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

You mean, someone who screwed up 2-5 relationships?! That's a huge red-flag for me, actually. If you're going to screw things up, why not take baby-steps first?! 

When you say 'someone who's been through 2-5 relationships', I hear 'someone who's been through 2-5 break-ups' and I mentally dismiss that. I don't want 2-5 break-ups. Do you?!

Obsessing over getting something perfect the first time around is not an effective strategy. You’re going to fail at stuff in life and as long as you can learn from your mistakes, it’s better to make some mistakes while you make progress than be paralysed by inaction trying to get something perfect the first time round.

Quote

Or, it could be because the senior developer is so senior that the languages of their time don't exist anymore and they didn't keep up with the times enough to understand the languages of our time.

Most of the time they’ll still wipe the floor with a newbie developer when it comes to fundamental skills of software development even if they’re not up to speed on all the latest tech.

Disregarding everyone in a field with much more experience than you because you think you know better as a newbie who read some books is the definition of being foolish. 

Quote

I'd trust the person who only knows theory. At least, there's a possibility that they won't screw it up. But, someone who doesn't know theory, who's just slashing you with a knife, will, for sure, screw it up. Then, they'll be like 'I have a lot of experience dismembering people's organs with my knife. My body-count is 11. What's yours?!' 

Both will have a 100% rate of killing you. You cannot learn surgery by reading books.

At this point, we are so abstracted away from the original topic I’ve stopped giving a fuck. Enjoy your life mate, I hope you get your perfect relationship first try

 

[mr_engineer]

36 minutes ago, something_else said:

Obsessing over getting something perfect the first time around is not an effective strategy. You’re going to fail at stuff in life and as long as you can learn from your mistakes, it’s better to make some mistakes while you make progress than be paralysed by inaction trying to get something perfect the first time round.

"Do or do not. There is no try." - Yoda. 

When you go for it, you're not supposed to leave the possibility of failure open. It is essential that we nail this. Because the consequences of screwing this up could absolutely ruin our lives. This is not a game of house. Lives are on the line here. 

I DO NOT CONSENT TO GOING THROUGH 2-5 BREAK-UPS. Period, the end. Why the hell should I get my heart broken so many times, when I can just learn from the mistakes of others and not make them?! And they're really elementary mistakes, by the way. They seem really elementary and avoidable to someone who understands the theory, because most people don't know the theory of making relationships work. 

36 minutes ago, something_else said:

Most of the time they’ll still wipe the floor with a newbie developer when it comes to fundamental skills of software development even if they’re not up to speed on all the latest tech.

Disregarding everyone in a field with much more experience than you because you think you know better as a newbie who read some books is the definition of being foolish. 

Doctors who went to med-school 40 years ago didn't learn a thing about genetics. So, they literally don't understand genetics. Now, though, students who go to med-school study huge books on genetics. So, they just know better about genetics. Better than doctors with 50 years of experience. 

Similarly, there was no social-media 40 years ago. So, Gen-X'ers know less about social-media than Gen-Z'ers. 

Evolution is a thing that you're not factoring in. Decades of experience isn't everything. 

A similar thing is happening on the relationships-front. Not so long ago, compromise was king when it came to making relationships work. That's simply not the case anymore. Now, it's all about compatibility. And personalization. The rules of the game have completely changed. And, everyone disagrees on the right strategy to win the game. 

36 minutes ago, something_else said:

Both will have a 100% rate of killing you. You cannot learn surgery by reading books.

Why does med-school have books, then?! There is a reason the best surgeons write books. It's for future surgeons to learn surgery. And, if you're not reading the big names in your field, you will cause a lot of suffering. Inevitably. 

A newly educated surgeon knows the theory of surgery, so they're fit to start doing surgeries. So, no, they do not have a 100% rate of killing you. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by mr_engineer

[CARDOZZO]

@mr_engineer Which books have you read about dating/relationships?

[mr_engineer]

@CARDOZZO I've read 'The Anatomy of Loneliness' by Teal Swan. Out of all the material I've seen out there, that book I take the most seriously. 

[CARDOZZO]

Just keep a distance from Michael Sartain & Rollo Tomassi.

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by CARDOZZO

[integral]

@mr_engineer Read a book on piano, then go play at a concert hall in front of thousands with no practice.

Edited July 18, 2023 by integral

[Tenebroso]

As long as men have this neurotic complex of needing to be a good wholesome man they will never see clearly. Women if you pay close attention to their actions are more ruthlessly pragmatic in their mating choices, while men are hopelessly romantic to their detriment. Watch their actions not what they tell you what they like. Which type of men have an abundance of women, sex etc in our current paradigm. Is it kind, gentle, vulnerable who have "done the inner work", "healed their trauma" no it's not. 

[mr_engineer]

6 hours ago, integral said:

@mr_engineer Read a book on piano, then go play at a concert hall in front of thousands with no practice.

This analogy is wrong, precisely because there is a tried and tested path to get good at playing a musical instrument. There is no debate about what it means to be good at it. Whereas in relationships, everyone disagrees on the theory. So, figuring out the theory is exceptionally hard work. 

There are certain 'high-yield techniques' to get good at anything. With musical instruments, because the consensus is strong, it's easy to just go to any music teacher and ask them what the technique is, they'll tell you. And that technique is universal, because no matter who you are, you're playing the same musical instrument. But, that's simply not the case with relationships! It's very personal. So, you will have to discover that high-yield technique for yourself. Based on your vision for it, your strengths and abilities, your resources. And, if I tell you what mine is, you may dismiss it and say 'no, that's invalid, mine is the only right one'. But who are you to say that about my high-yield technique?! 

Yall really need to get out of your illusions of the right way to go about this and wake up to the very real issues at hand. The biggest one being, the lack of theory. Stop denying the need for theory, it's very much needed. Religion has totally fucked up people's minds on the issue of relationships, so much so that atheistically minded people are running from relationships. That's why the divorce-rates are going up. Because your belief in God is how you create belonging, it's God that decides where you belong in this universe that it created, who you belong with. So, in order to create belonging, a shared belief relative to God is a must. This is why religions prefer to get people married within the religion. 

Edited July 19, 2023 by mr_engineer

[hyruga]

Listen to Casey Zander on YouTube for dating advices and what women wants.