Kevin Beal

Oh, that's weird. It doesn't say it's a PK or gold thread. I wonder why...

These suggestions for how things should be changed technologically are not trivial. From the standpoint of a web developer, I already see all sorts of problems with how this sort of thing would be implemented. This is the sort of thing that if requested as a feature, I would be re-negotiating the feature list to have it taken out. Also, the thread I linked already discusses this and many other possibilities at length. Did you read it by chance?

There was also this other discussion: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37664-negative-reputation

Honestly, I had no idea that dressing up as a police officer was illegal, and I certainly don't think that it's immoral (even if other people do). I would have used a different example if I knew he was going to hang on to it for dear life. "This is what Kevin Beal thinks, what he really means. I'll explain it to you, because it needs all kinds of interpretation and can't simply be taken as written. But that's okay, because I've got him all figured out". You know. I find that pretty offensive! Also, it feels weird being referred to with both first and last name. Is anyone going to get confused if you just say "Kevin"? I don't know, it just seems so cold. brrrrr!

So, turns out I was totally wrong, haha. The CDN is all that's needed for these types of requests, and the CDN already used supports this. I would just have replace the javascript library that handles playing audio and write my own. But this might not be supported in all the target browsers, and it would take a good amount of work. I'll you know if I get it worked out.

An argument is taking a premise or set of premises to a conclusion via a series of logical implications. You don't just add numbers next to sentences. You take things that we would both accept and from that foundation, build on top of that more sophisticated claims implied by the claims that make up the foundation. And keep building until the house called an argument is finished (the final conclusion is implied by everything before it). Not every step in the logical sequence need be explicit, but they should be implied by the context if they aren't explicit. So, the actual form of what you are claiming is your first argument is something like this: 1. PUAs advocate watching and working on your body language. 2. Changes in body language can have a causal effect in terms of producing the mental states associated with the body language. 3. Therefore, putting forward the image that you have the mental states associated with the body language is not pretending. 4. Therefore you, Kevin, are wrong when you say that PUAs advocate pretending to be something you are not. Just for the record, I am familiar with how body language works and have been consciously modifying my own body language for almost a decade now. Anecdotally, I can confirm that it does increase my confidence. The problem is that this assumes things that I never said. (And it's a non-sequitor). Pretending to be something you're not, alone, is not the issue I have with what you're saying. (I don't claim to know anything about Roosh, only what you yourself have said). Putting forward a false or half true image of yourself is appropriate in all sorts of social situations. And being true to yourself can be being false to others. You've simply condensed everything I said into some ridiculous picture of a person who when asked "how was your day?" by a cashier goes into a monologue about my whole life story. I don't know if this is an honest mistake or what, but it's not like I ever said anything like that. If you are genuinely interested in the woman you are dating, feigning disinterest in her is not equivalent at all to your body language example. You aren't feigning disinterest in her in the hopes that will actually cause you to lose interest in her. By slipping in insults under the pretense of a compliment, you aren't trying to actually become a dick. You only do it because you believe it will get you women's affections. You want to be with a woman you find interesting (at the very least), and you said that you care about them (and I assume don't want them to feel insecure, generally). You just want to pretend you don't feel those things so that she will like you. That's not the same thing as pretending to be more confident that you really are. She becomes interested in the image of yourself you project which betrays your actual feelings for her, meaning she doesn't like you, but who you're pretending to be. Your actual feelings are bottled up inside out of fear that she won't find you attractive. I pretend to be more confident or cool than I really am in the moment, often. I just don't want to base a romantic relationship on that. I don't want to bottle up my feelings because I'm afraid they won't like me. That makes me literally ill. It makes me also feel distinctly unmanly, cowardly and ashamed. There are more options than: 1. be false so that she'll like me, and 2. make her my replacement mommy, on call to manage my insecurities for me. That's how you portrayed it earlier, and then added that the 2nd type (the not "you" type) are also stalkers and predators. I really don't like blarping and unloading all of your personal baggage onto people, or Oprah style public confessionals, or doing anything that would even start to make anyone think that they are responsible for managing my feelings. I'd really rather establish trust by gradually sharing who we are and what our experience of each other is, including my anxieties and insecurities, as they become relevant. The more fake I am at the beginning, the more difficult it will be to build that trust, and more anxious I will be that she won't like me, and the more likely that she is attracted to the image, rather than the me that I know inside my head. Not that I execute this very well, but that's the goal, anyway. Women don't like desperation, do like confidence and mystery, clearly. But their desires and interests are diverse enough that I'm not going to depend on provoking their insecurities and feigning disinterest, as if they were synonymous with confidence, mystery and a lack of desperation. In fact, I think I would avoid women who attracted to dicks (or men pretending to be dicks). When you start to talk as if there are only two choices, it's almost guaranteed to be a rationalization justifying behavior you yourself don't truly believe is having integrity.

Lol. Yea. I see how that would sound weird. Here's one place I bring it up: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43196-youtube-what-is-existence/

I'm just universalizing the rule that you should be condescending (his rule). It's not done to provoke his irritation, but to help him see himself. There is a method to the madness. Don't hate!

Haha. I'm sure it would. You're no fun! Come on. That was funny. Anything I could say in response would just be repeating myself, and I'm done going in circles. I can't play checkers with someone who doesn't know the rules. It's okay, not everyone knows how logical arguments work. You'll get there. You just have to keep practicing. I would suggest though that it may not be so much in your interest to ignore logical proofs. I would also suggest as a next step working on counter arguments which make reference to the logical sequence of arguments, rather than only the content, since the content itself may not be the important part. I would suggest watching the introduction to philosophy series, focusing specifically on epistemology, universals and logical fallacies. Take care little buddy!

You know, you keep making these kinds of catty comments and adding strangely placed smiley faces, and I don't know if you are like, trying to provoke my insecurity or something, but you know, I think I'm actually starting to fall for you, just a little. Tell me that my ass looks big in this skirt! I'll do anything you tell me, you mysterious dominant man, you!

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43965-friends-with-benefits/?p=402997 Perhaps you didn't see it.

It's amazing. Even when you're wrong, you're right. And it's not the first time. Even logical proofs are no match for denial. No thank you, on the offer for the book. And no. Making a logical argument that feigning ignorance is lying (it's literally one step in logic, two seconds thought) is not immoral of me. I actually give a very detailed reason for why that can't work logically in this post. (You not liking it has nothing to do with whether or not it's immoral). Would you rather be a liar, or this guy: I'm sorry it hurts your feelings, but you have to take that up with reality, not me. You know, or negotiate, talk about it.

Welcome to the boards! I'd prefer not to call you Anonymous Coward, if that's okay with you. I'd feel like a jerk. So I'll just call you AC I'm glad you are so passionate and committed to working through all these really important topics. I saw your table of contents and that's pretty damn ambitious! I wish you luck in getting it published. Unfortunately, I don't know anything about how to get that done. I can relate to your excitement about teaching the teacher. I've got a similar disagreement concerning existence that I'm working hard to fine tune and do it justice. Strangely enough, determinism is actually one of the only topics that is highly discouraged in the forum guidelines. I don't know that anyone has ever been banned for bringing it up, and despite the guideline it does still come up every once in a while. It's a topic I've focused on a lot as well, although it appears we may be on opposite sides of that debate. See you around the boards! Take care

No, I really didn't. I proved logically that it is lying, and then you ignored the proof. The problem is that it's sad, and kind of pathetic to pretend to be something other than you are in order to win someone's affections. No analysis of true selves or false selves is necessary. Also, I'm not in therapy.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Obviously what I value and what she values would have to be largely aligned.

Your distinction has nothing to do with any of my arguments, and changes nothing about the logical consequences. It's just pedantic quibbling. Even if what you were saying were true, it would only ever be a red herring. Again, just change the analogy to something which isn't illegal or ostensibly immoral. It changes nothing whatever. It's just boring.

I don't understand. Did you or did you not answer your own question? And no, you've mistaken me. I have every intention of being a badass, and the kind of man that women desire. I just refuse to do it on anybody else's terms. The only way you could have concluded that I'm quitting the dating market is to assume that I don't believe I can get a unicorn, which is not at all what I was saying. The opposite in fact is true. I refuse to settle for anything less. We've already established that PUA is not game and that PUA is pretending. My entire objection to PUA is that it's pretending. My only problem with game is when it is pretending. If you don't understand that, then I don't know what the hell you've been reading, but it's certainly not anything I've written. I fought very hard to get where I am, so you can kindly shove your "beta tendencies" nonsense.

Whoops! I forgot add the final and most important step in logic: therefore non-violent communication is violent.

It's not the women that I'm concerned about so much as it is the fact that PUA's are lying to themselves in order to get women. It is a confession that you don't think you are valuable enough for her. I can't respect a woman who operates so primitively, as described by PUA's. Why would anyone want to be with someone that they don't respect? Well, if the other two options are being an alpha or being a sensitive guy who's really a stalker and potential murderer, then that limits your options quite a bit. I've hear repeatedly that this or that and the other is rare. A ton of things are apparently very rare. Maybe all those rarities add up into something which is actually not beyond anyone's reach. I'd rather be alone than have to pretend to be something I'm not.

You answered your own question: actually be as cool and confident as you are portraying yourself. I'd really like to see the evidence of this. You can easily change the analogy to include only lies on a resume which cannot be observably verifiable to the degree that pretending to be aloof is observably verifiable. This distinction doesn't take away anything from what I said, that I can see. It's still lying. My point was that it was lying to be liked by women. You already confessed to it being done for an effect, rather than a genuine disinterest. I don't have to prove it. Rare or not, it's still important. Rare or not, it still is women's interest we are trying to get, and women know women the way that programmers know programmers. If I present myself as a police officer, wear the uniform and a badge, does that make me a cop? No. The fact that you say that feigning disinterest is part of the PUA deal, necessarily implies the lie. If it weren't a lie, it wouldn't be feigning. Again, I don't need to prove anything, you've already confessed it.

Hey thanks for starting this important conversation! Stef doesn't really post on the boards anymore, so he's not likely to respond. You'll have much better luck calling into the show if you want to offer him correction. (Although, I would avoid thought experiments about his daughter which are disturbing in nature). I hope you don't mind if I take a swing at it in his place. I listened to your recording (and the recent call-in show) and gave it some consideration, and I think that I disagree with certain things you've said. And I think these disagreements are important. I'd like to continue this conversation and perhaps see where my own thinking is in error, or have the chance to correct you on something that I find very important and have given a lot of thought. I've tried to recreate the propositions in the language you used (albeit condensed) so as not to misrepresent you. Please correct me where I fail to represent your position accurately. My Disagreements Proposition #1 Don't communicate the judgments and criticisms that you have about the other person, because it doesn't help them in any way. Only share what your feelings and needs are, and ask the other person what are their feelings and needs (via the NVC methodology). I personally stand to lose a lot from people withholding their judgments and criticisms of me. The prospect of people not sharing that with me actually deeply troubles me. There have been times in my life where I have done things which were lacking in integrity and even immoral in a few cases. A few people have sat me down and shared with me the truth of what I was doing: lacking integrity / acting immorally. It stung quite a bit at first and I had a defensive reaction. I retreated physically and emotionally from them, but I thought about it and they were totally 100% right. It was really difficult, but it was one of the most positive things that has ever happened in my life and led me to make serious commitments to principled living, and I haven't done any of those things since. I have coworkers who aren't always the most tactful in their criticisms, but they rely on my programming and design to deliver the best possible product to them and to the customers. I don't like to think of my work as being crappy, but despite that, it occasionally is crappy (by cutting corners or carelessness). It took some getting used to, but I make a concerted effort to encourage criticism of my work because the end product is more important than my emotional investment in being a good programmer. If I am in a romantic relationship with a woman, I am very eager to know what her judgments are. I want to know that a lot more than I want to know what observations she has. (I'm very sensitive to the difference). I want to know if she thinks that I do X too much or not enough, what she likes and doesn't like about her experience of me. It doesn't mean I'll just automatically change my behavior, but it's extremely important for me to know those things. I wouldn't get involved with a woman whose judgment I did not trust and want to hear about. Proposition #2 The healthy, NVC way of getting your needs met is to talk to the other person about what your needs are and how their behavior is eliciting the feelings which reveal that these needs are not being met. You ask them (never demand) that they modify that behavior so that you may get that need met. I have actually had some pretty destructive first hand experience with my mother asking me to change my behavior so that I could meet her needs. I'm doubtful that she would be considered a model NVC kind of person, but already we need to add extra layers of complexity on top of the theory in order to account for someone using this same form to selfishly manipulate her children into managing her emotions for her. (A layer of complexity that would be unnecessary as compared to UPB in describing violence). I looked at the list of needs that NVC aims for people to get met which include things like appreciation and belonging. The word "need" also refers to things like food, water and air. If I were to engage in behavior which serves to prevent someone from getting their need to food and water, this clearly makes me the asshole, if not actively homicidal. If however I am engaging in behavior which prevents in some way that person from experiencing a subjective state called "belonging", I am obviously not responsible in the same way I would be by preventing them from breathing. The word "need" paints a particular picture in the mind about not being able to live without, being entitled to the satisfaction of that need. It's precisely for this reason that my mother used the word, and why it was so toxic. She did not say "hey, I'm feeling insecure and I don't want to feel that way, and I have the desire that you manage my insecurity for me", which would have been honest. I resolutely oppose using the word "need" precisely because of the way it can prevent win-win outcomes. Nobody else is responsible for my feelings of belonging, or trusting me, or appreciating me and all of the other "needs" listed. I don't want anything to feel obligated. I would rather them do it out of their natural compassion for me, or out of principle. An alternative methodology which I think is better is Real Time Relationships (also a book by Stef). Proposition #3 Violent communication (in contradistinction to Non-violent Communication) is "passing a moral judgment instead of observing". This is problematic (and violent) because it provokes a defensive response (or anything else which provokes this same defensive reaction). In other words, their own self image is being attacked. Making demands is similarly violent communication, because it takes away their freedom. Starting your car can trigger a veteran's post traumatic stress disorder, and make them experience being attacked, and this is clearly not violent to start your car. Causing defensive feelings could be necessary, but is demonstrably insufficient a condition to conclude that it is violence. Other people's subjective experiences cannot logically be the basis for determining what is violence. Let's just say for the sake of argument that I took offense to your statements and felt defensive in the same way I might if someone condemned me as a bad guy. Does that make it violence? Presumably not. Perhaps this is my own ignorance, but I cannot comprehend how making demands of people takes away anyone's ability to choose, or limit their freedom; unless the demand is backed by some kind of violence, in which case it's not the demand which takes away their freedom but the threat of violence. When my niece was little, she demanded things of me. That was not violence. I was very happy to obey. Maybe it's explained in Rosenberg's books, but I don't know why any of these definitions of violence are used as opposed to any arbitrary definition of violence. Like, if whatever produces defensiveness is violent is the conclusion, what is the logical basis for this? Why is this definition better than any other? You said that any thinking person would consider statements like "you are vile and worthless and a slut" to be violence, but I really don't. Obviously it's really nasty and horrible, but as far as I could glean from your recording and in conversation with other NVC advocates is that violence is synonymous with horrible and nasty, and that horrible and nasty is violence, like they define each other. I could obviously be missing something important, but if that were the case, it would be a clear tautology, and would be meaningless, philosophically. Proposition #4 Stef is claiming that any communication which doesn't fall under the NVC framework must be violent, and this is an example of the logical fallacy known as "denying the antecedent". (AKA a false dilemma). I think that the actual logical sequence that Stef used was different than what you said. Here is my interpretation of his argument: 1. Moral judgment is violence 2. Saying that something is violent is a moral judgment 3. NVC says that certain types of communication are violent Conclusion: NVC is passing moral judgment Non-violent and violent is an actual true dichotomy. It really has to be one or the other. What Stef is talking about in your description of the alleged fallacy is not NVC the specific framework, but actual non-violence (anything different necessarily including violence). And because NVC the framework claims to be a methodology specifically to achieve non-violence, then it is internally inconsistent, leading to hypocrisy. Proposition #5 Stef claims that NVC is in the realm of thoughts and UPB (as a moral philosophy) is in the realm of actions. This is wrong because NVC is all about how to communicate effectively, and he's even more wrong because moral philosophy is composed of thoughts, therefore he's actually got it backwards. (And people just passively accept his statements because he is verbose and talks quickly). It's understandable that you would not know this if you haven't read the book, but he's actually talking about is what specifically is being evaluated under the framework. In UPB, behavior isn't true or false, rather it can be preferable or not preferable as satisfying the condition of universality. ("Preferable" describing how it fits the standard and not the subjective state of preferring something). However, with NVC the determining factor of whether or not communication is violent is if it causes these subjective states of defensiveness and self loathing. So, in that sense, he's right. Also, this characterization that you make about people blindly accepting anything Stef says is pretty damn insulting, and unjust. If I understanding your position correctly, you are actively working against your own stated values by saying this. (I only say this because it's hypocritical, and not because my offense means anything). Conclusion I have a powerful distaste for NVC, but I am no expert and am always open to counter argument and counter evidence. But whenever I have observed or been in an NVC conversation, it's clear that I'm being treated as if I am going to be defensive and that my ego is fragile, that I need to be handled delicately. I find that incredibly irritating and condescending. I also cannot treat myself as if my judgment is of no use to anyone else. I would feel disgusted with myself if I actually believed that. I also find it suffocating in actual practice. It comes off like a script, it feels inauthentic and in order to maintain it, I have to suppress my judgment and any indication in body language or tone which would betray my act that I don't feel judgments about the observations. I appreciate that you would disagree, and I hope that you do and tell me where I'm in error, and that you give this response serious consideration, even if anything I say provokes defensiveness or threatens your self image.

Again, I'm no expert, but my understanding is that PUA is about presenting a certain image for a desired effect, in the same way that lying on a job resume is presenting an image of the perfect employee for the effect of getting the job. Provoking insecurity, lying about the amount of money you make, feigning disinterest are all examples that I've heard from pick up artists. Being confident, being responsible and assertive and things like that are pretty universal and not particular to PUA and would be part of any relationship advice column. I might have a distorted version of PUA in my mind, but I don't think that PUA and Game are synonymous. Also, I don't think that not caring if she says yes or no is necessarily a good thing. I kind of think that you need both the father and the mother involved in teaching these things. A mother who's honest about how women operate, and a father who helps you see that what women say they want is not always what they really want. (I got neither). It's women's interests we are talking about after all, and I don't know what it's like to be a woman. If someone who was not a programmer was talking with authority to know even better than programmers how programmers think, it would kind of annoy me. And there is a lot of outrage about PUA from women. I'm inclined to think that not all of it is mindless hysteria. I think that PUA may help to pick up where the father lacked, but I think that there is another dimension to it worth exploring. I think it would be really awesome to hear from more of the ladies if they are reading this.

No, actually you are being judgmental, offensive, unjust and you are clearly jaded. Have a great day!

Part of the reason I entered therapy was because of this fear. I've passed up opportunities to date because of this fear before and since therapy. I'm not any kind of authority on women or dating. I don't know if this fear saved me or hurt me. In some cases, it certainly did help me to avoid some potentially very unhappy relationships, and other's I'm less sure. To my surprise, I have had some limited success focusing on being my charming and funny self rather than my fearless self. I might have better luck trying out the fearless thing, but whenever I try and pushed past or ignore my fear, I only ever end up amplifying the fear (at least, with women). When it comes to fear and things I want very badly, it often has to become the case that the fear of not getting it surpasses the fear of trying and failing. Instant video pornography probably hurts me then, for this reason: because it keeps me somewhat satisfied. I suspect that everyone is fearful, but that could just be me mistaking myself for the world. I don't really see anything wrong with fear, except when it affects your game face when you are trying to get a woman's phone number. Fear has been a huge motivator in my life and has helped me achieve a lot. (Not that I'm super successful or anything). I'm sort of counting on the fact that some women will not completely ignore what they pretty universally find attractive in men, but know what she wants in terms of virtue. That is, to start with virtue at the beginning. (Virtues beyond confidence). I have found and seen in others that one problem with waiting to share your actual thoughts and feelings about the other person and the relationship adds increasing complexity in the form of mismatched expectations, how invested you become in maintaining the mask, etc. I also don't like the idea of pretending to be anything other than what I am, especially not for affections of a woman who wouldn't be attracted to the real me. I am not an expert on PUA, but it's my understanding the these men are pretending to be something that they are not so that they can be with women who like them for being something other than what they really are. I don't feel as sorry for the women in that arrangement as I do the men. I've pretended to be someone else enough for one lifetime. And any satisfaction I got by bedding a woman who thought I was something other than what I am, would be a very fleeting satisfaction. To me, it's like two opposing worldviews that I can neither reconcile, nor abandon. I want to be my sensitive self which I like, and I also want to be my assertive self like I know that women like. I imagine the solution is some combination of the two, but I don't know what that looks like, necessarily. I just know that I don't want to be valued for something that I'm not, and I know that I want to be attractive to good women. I want to induce drooling and weak knees with my normal charming self

Thanks! I really really appreciate you stepping me through the logic there. I find that makes conversation much more productive and enjoyable. I think that it was a bit of an overstatement for me to say that casual sex works against biology, without the important caveat that there are different mating strategies that us humans are wired for. It is working against the purpose of oxytocin, an important part of our biology. The effects of which are very powerful. So, the argument is basically: 1. Oxytocin is seen in mammals with a very close positive correlation with pair bonding in that species. 2. Sex is one place that oxytocin is released, and breastfeeding is another, and other situations where bonding is important for survival. 3. Humans produce a lot of oxytocin and the effect of it is an increased bond, attachment. 4. When people engage in activities that serve to create an attachment, while trying to maintain a lack of attachment, this will be difficult, if not effectively impossible. 5. Being that I've never heard of it leading to anywhere but resentment after things are complicated by the introduction of this attachment, I'm inclined to think that it's impossible, rather than unlikely. I can't really argue with you about the desire to be nurtured bit, though. That does, apparently seem to turn a lot of women off. I do wonder though about the exact context. To analogize with the sexes reversed, if someone asked me "do you find Julie Benz sexy?" I would say "hell yea, I do" and I find most models of the magazine cover variety hot. But I also find other body types attractive as well. Like, if you asked me "do you find fat women sexy", I'm going to say "nope". But there are some body types with some extra meat on their bones that I really like a lot. I've been surprised by just how much. I've heard the same thing from other guys. If lots of men are pushing for emotional connection with their romantic interests because of childhood neglect and denial of affection, that statement alone paints a picture which may not be the reality. It could be the case that it's because of his history that he's learned the importance of emotional connection, rather than some compulsive, unconscious and neurotic thing he's trying to use the woman for. Full disclosure, I have this same wound, and the same desire, so I have a bias. Perhaps it's wishful thinking, and if so, I'm not really in a position to tell the casual sexers that they are engaged in wishful thinking. Definitely something to be mindful of, so thanks for challenging me on it.