MMX2010

In my opinion, "fear of rejection" comprises the entire core of your being at present. Why do you assume that no one would ever want to connect with you? (Because "fear of rejection" - specifically, "It's easier to make that assumption, because the assumption avails me of having to work hard to connect with people. When I don't work hard to connect with people, all I do is sit back, do nothing, and become shocked - shocked I say - when someone wants to connect with me.") Why do you assume that it's other peoples' job to connect with you, rather than assuming it's your job to connect with others? (Because "fear of rejection" - as described above.) Why does the loss of one girl's conversation - (whom you've only spoken to for five minutes, and therefore don't know whether she's crazy, hyper-depressed, or just plain not-suitable for you) - cause so much emotional distress that you can't even do your job after it happens? (Because "fear of rejection" - when you do absolutely nothing to try and connect with others, the only connections you can acquire are by sheer luck and randomness. Since these connections are hyper-rare, the loss of any one of these becomes highly traumatic.) Why do you dress in a self-described unattractive manner? (Because "fear of rejection" - if you were to acquire money, six-pack abs, philosophical soundness, moral uprightness, and Pick-Up Artist skills, you'd ruin every single emotional connection with every attractive female by asking yourself, "Does she really like me for me, or does she only like me for the philosophy, money, abs, moral uprightness and/or Pick-Up Artist skills?" Because that question causes intense emotional pain, (and because you may not be willing to consider that the question itself is unintelligent and self-sabotaging), it's easier to dress unattractively and refuse to connect with others.) The good news is that you're 17, and so you can fix it very easily. But the bad news is that most people on here disagree with the most effective solution. They prefer therapy - rather than developing consistent sleep habits, fixing your diet, lifting weights (or doing bodyweight exercises), dressing nicer, and learning how to flirt with women so that you can approach about two hundred of them in a year - expecting to be rejected by approximately 195 of them. Lastly, I clicked on your profile and saw you're from Toronto. I'm part of the Roosh V Forum, and its members consistently rank Toronto as filled with the most unattractive, entitled, and not-worth-dating women in the Western Hemisphere. My maximum condolences to you for living there.

You're focused on "The unfulfilled love thing is still there with a potential to destroy any future relationships. This is the dilemma that is alerting me in my dreams. I think." while also admitting, "I am horribly afraid of failures, I feel like doing anything is pointless because I cannot really enjoy anything at all due to this hole inside me that will always cut me off from the outside world. Consequently I find myself presently in a situation of stasis, of lacking much experience of the world and of very low motivation." So you're letting your focus on "unfulfilled love, and its potential negative impact on future relationships" interfere with your ability to become successful as a person. This is not merely a child-like perspective - (because children, feeling powerless, focus on their feelings of powerlessness and conclude that their futures will be bleak). But it is also an adult female perspective - (because adult females, being female, focus on their feelings of "I don't have a good man" and conclude that their futures will be bleak unless they acquire a "good man" first). No one admires a man who lets his relationship status sabotage his current level of success. Men will, for the most part, smugly smile at your lack of success, because they view you as sexual competition - so your failure enhances their chances for success. And women will, for the most part, give you lame advice to make it look like they're helping. So you have to succeed for its own sake, and for your own sake. Define yourself by your success first and then seek relationships.

I'm not going to answer RJ's question, but I am going to point out some flaws in the question and subsequent replies. (1) RJ doesn't define what "healthy" means, nor how to measure it, nor from whose perspective we ought to measure. (Healthy for the man? Healthy for the woman? Healthy for the couple-as-a-whole? Healthy for the children they conceive? Healthy for everyone's children? Healthy for most men? Healthy for most women?) (2) No one else called out RJ's omission, which implies that everyone believes it's obvious what "healthy" is, how to measure it, and from whose perspective to measure. (It's not obvious.) (3) We're a sexually reproducing species; this fact alone implies that "Yes, casual sex is healthy, because we're a sexually reproducing species." is a much better starting argument than "No, casual sex isn't healthy." (4) The most extreme arguments demand the largest amount of objective evidence. Contrast Pepin's non-extreme argument, "I think it depends a lot on the people. I don't think the vast majority of people would do well with that sort of relationship, but I think it can work in a small number of cases." with adamNJ's highly extreme argument, "I am going to say, unhealthy, if you are a woman or a man." As philosophers, shouldn't we recognize extreme arguments and demand objective evidence for them? And, as philosophers, if insufficient objective evidence is given, shouldn't we demand that those extreme arguments be surrendered? ------------------- (5) Lastly, an anecdote. An unidentified member of the FDR Community doesn't approve of Game / Pick-Up Artistry because he thinks they're dishonest and would never work on a virtuous woman. He has implemented Pick-Up Artistry only once in his life on a hipster chick whom he was attracted to. He used a horoscope opener and palm-reading to create such a strong and instantaneous sense of rapport that he got her phone number and knew she wanted to sleep with him. He was filled with instant contempt and revulsion because he discovered that she wasn't virtuous, and decided that sleeping with her was a waste of his time. My counter-argument, (which I was never able to communicate to him because he "blocked me"), is this: (1) Stefan Molyneux currently has 235,000 subscribers. I'll multiply that by 3 to estimate that he has 750,000 devoted fans. (2) Every one of Stefan's fans speak English, but not all of his fans live in the United States, so I'll estimate that Stefan has 400,000 devoted American fans. About 90% of these devoted fans are men, leaving 360K. And about 75% of these are unattractive men, leaving 90K. (Guys, I'm not saying that you're unattractive, I'm citing research from OKCupid, which estimates that women on that website find approximately 75% of the male customers unattractive.) Lastly, not nearly all 90K of these individuals live in the same city as the female hipster, so you can estimate that approximately 2,250 attractive male, devoted Stef-fans live in her city. (3) Google says there are about 320,000,000 (320 Million) Americans. About half of these are under 18, leaving 160M. About half of these are female, leaving 80M. About three-fourths of these are unattractive men, leaving 20M. Lastly, not nearly all 20M live in the same city as the female hipster, so you can estimate that approximately 500,000 attractive men live in her city. (4) Modern twenty-something women DO NOT seek male mentors along the following conditions, "He's smart, morally upright, successful, and has a well-put-together life BUT I DON'T WANT TO SLEEP WITH HIM." Instead, if a modern woman seeks a male mentor, she'll always use the following conditions, "He's smart, morally upright, successful, and has a well-put-together life and so I want to sleep with him." (5) The unidentified FDR member views himself as virtuous. But he never considered dividing The Number Of Attractive Male Stef-Fans In The Hipster's City (2250 people) by The Number Of Attractive Males In The Hipster's City (500,000 people). The result is the fraction 1/222. This means that, for the hipster to face-to-face meet another attractive male Stef-fan, she'd have to get to know approximately 222 attractive men. Think about how large the number 222 is. That's about 20 times larger than the number of sexual partners a woman will have in her lifetime. So, from her perspective, meeting him was literally a once-in-a-lifetime experience. And did he introduce her to philosophy? Did he sleep with her first, so that she'd be more willing to listen to him, and then introduce her to philosophy? No, he didn't. And no, he didn't. Because he was filled with instant revulsion and decided that sleeping with her was a waste of his time. And so, my counter-argument is that no one is more unhealthy than this unidentified FDR member, because he had a chance to have consensual casual sex with a woman he was attracted to - and whom he could've spread philosophy to - BUT was filled with such revulsion that he didn't even think, "Hey, I can sleep with her, and then introduce her to philosophy...." He didn't realize the opportunity he had, because he couldn't empathize with her desire for sex - nor was he willing to risk some heartache and wasted time by introducing her to philosophy while having sex with her.

I find it odd that you told them, "I'm moving to Vietnam; my decision is final." (and maybe) "I don't want to hear reasons why I should or shouldn't." At 26, you're more than old enough to move there first, and then tell them. So why did you tell them?

The dating market has changed so much in the last ten to twenty years that people in stable relationships for 5-or-more years are out of touch. Women have so much freedom and economic power now that they can demand higher and higher returns on their interactions with the opposite sex. And this is especially true for 20-something women at the peak of the power, and at the peak of receiving male attention. I can shorten my argument with a simple one-liner: "A Man Who Can But Doesn't Is Sexy; A Man Who Doesn't Because He Can't Is Unsexy." So PUA is an essential way of demonstrating that I'm Someone Who Could But Doesn't, or Someone Who Could But Might Not. And PUA distinguishes me from other men of intelligence and interest-in-philosophy, most of whom are Someone Who Doesn't Because He Can't.

Because you're a man living in a post-feminist society, no one wants you to have feelings of safety and love. They, instead, want you to risk alienation, death, and ostracism to solve other peoples' problems - which increases the wealth of society. The more you feel that your specific feelings are unique, the more likely they'll be to damage your future relationships. But the less you feel that these feelings are unique, (and the less you feel these feelings are even bad), the less likely they'll be to damage your future relationships. In short, your unmet needs of security and love are merely things to accept, not things to worry about or fight through therapy.

I'll give the most hilarious answer ever. At first, I trust Amy more because she's pretty, female, older, and I want to sleep with her. My hindbrain says that a smart, attractive woman in a scientific field constantly gets bombarded with, "You don't really know what you're talking about.", and "Did your man do your work for you?", and "She must've slept her way to where she is now." - so the plan is to be the opposite of that and see what happens. That same hindbrain views Elliot Hulse as sexual competition that overshadows me in many ways, particularly in ways crucial to Short-Term mating. So I deem him untrustworthy, so that I can communicate that untrustworthiness to others - hoping that they choose me instead of him. But then my hindbrain says, "You idiot! Just orbit around Elliot Hulse, because there's only one of him and hundreds of admiring women - and it's not like he can service them all!" This counter-argument makes Elliot and Amy equally trust-worthy. --------------------- The tl;dr version of my argument is, "There are too many factors that determine whether we trust someone. And many of those factors, especially relating to sexual competition, are sub-conscious and automatic. This automatic nature suggests that Tservitive is asking a question that cannot be rationally answered, since the majority of why we decide to trust is automatic and irrational."

How old are you?

This topic is quite illuminating. I'm fairly certain that the original poster crafted it in response to Stefan's original podcast on pick-up artistry, in which he states, "I've never really studied it....but I'm sure that it only works on dumb, stupid women AND that everyone who uses it is enslaved to the people they're using it on." http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2454_Pickup_Artists_National_Anthem.mp3 Stefan's argument is so bad that I'm surprised no one commented on how bad it is. "He hasn't studied it, but he's dead certain that it only works on dumb stupid women AND that everyone who uses it is enslaved to the people they're using it on." Really? A much more honest and balanced argument would be, "I've personally never used it, nor have I studied it extensively, so I cannot generalize about the people who use it. However, I can state that my impression that it only works on dumb, stupid women is why I haven't studied nor implemented it. My impression is merely my subjective opinion, and it falls far short of the deep philosophical and deep scientific approach required to either understand pick-up artistry or the women it works on, so DO NOT think my words are an argument." If Stefan had given this non-argument, he wouldn't have generalized about two groups of people he hasn't tried to understand. -------------------- As far as the original poster goes, he is trolling the board with triggering language, but he is also arguing that you should try to understand pick-up artistry first - in a detached, scientific, personally-exploring way - and then argue its merits or demerits second. His good argument was dismissed and met with trolling responses such as, "You haven't inspired me to study pick-up artistry." - (as if it's ever anyone else's job to inspire you to seek the truth about something before commenting on it?) - and "You're insulting the readership!" - (Yes, he is, but that isn't the only thing he's doing.) -------------------- The best argument was made by Mr. Capitalism and RyanT, but it is flawed. Mr. Capitalism correctly states, "A lot of the responses are reacting negatively to the OP's confrontational and dismissive tone. As a response to these complaints, batman1337 is defending his 'frame'. Realize this is a learned skill via pickup/fast seduction. Conscious or not (I bet conscious), he's using his inner game in this forum. It really is a lifestyle change, and a change in way of thinking for him. You guys are criticizing his assertive, manipulative tone; his lack of empathy, and self-knowledge, his immediate offensive stance. We should understand these are skills that he uses to experience sexuality with women. He put in some mental effort to be able to so easily do this (maybe even unconsciously at this point). And, I have no doubt this is effective. I wouldn't be surprised if it has other benefits outside of heterosexual relationships. We're going to try and convince him this behavior is undesirable and wrong. He most likely thought this when he first started with PUA. A big portion of the 'inner-game' was becoming ethically convinced that this attitude is virtuous. This was a barrier I was unwilling to overcome. We're not going to be able to change that, easily. The pickup-artist is specifically targeting the animal instincts within women, and overcoming societal barriers, to capture their attention and become the object of their desire. It's an indictment of the dysfunctional dating market." The flaw in his argument is that he only sees the flawed women in the dating market. (Those flawed women only respond to Pick-Up artists, because they're so free to pursue their animal nature in sexuality. That's what Stefan meant when he said Pick-Up artistry only works on dumb, stupid women. And, if only women weren't like this, then the dating market wouldn't be so dysfunctional.) ----------------------- RyanT continues along this line by asking, "That's the rub of it, Why not work on self-knowledge? People are spending thousands just learning how to flirt with women, imagine if they actually put that money into going to therapy?" But both of these men fail to recognize the male aspect of the flawed dating market, which is the unwillingness to maximize their own potential as either boyfriends / husbands / or casual sex partners. Instead of asking, "Which of these should I implement: therapy or Pick-Up artistry?", why not ask, "How do I implement BOTH Pick-up artistry and therapy?" If you implement both, you'll become more attractive to women than someone who only implements one or the other. It's as simple as that, but it requires extra work to implement. ------------------- Lastly, the people who say that Pick-Up artistry doesn't work on virtuous women: (1) have never tried it, and therefore don't know whether it works or doesn't, and (2) wouldn't believe me if I claimed that I used a combination of pick-up artistry, philosophy, empathy, self-knowledge, and lack-of-empathy to inspire a virtuous woman to love me.

One caveat, though. When people get uncomfortable with my presence, it's because I'm making an excellent argument and refusing to break eye-contact in response to their breaking of eye-contact. At one of the FDR NYC meetings, I was making an argument about the general behavior of women when the "listener" immediately broke eye-contact (less than three seconds in). I spoke for a little bit then fell silent, waiting for him to re-establish eye-contact. He re-established eye-contact, so I continued to speak, until he interrupted me by asking, "Is your food getting cold?" And on and on and on... He wasn't very philosophically sound, and afterwards he complained that certain "strong personalities" were "dominating the meeting" by "speaking their opinions and expecting you to agree with them." Long story short, it's possible to try and dominate a social group by accusing its members of being non-empathetic. So don't create the "Empathetic = Non-Dominant and Dominant = Non-Empathetic" generalization. It's not only wrong, but it also makes you vulnerable to being emotionally manipulated away from good arguments.

It's interesting that you think the framing aspect is the least important, while the arguments are supreme. From this, I know that you don't read Rollo Tomassi, and are, therefore, unaware of this definition of Frame. http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/12/frame/ As always, whenever I reference Rollo, I only highlight specific points - but the entire article is always worth reading. I highlighted the definition of Frame in red - but focus on the bolded part. The key concept that Frame is often subconscious is a reminder that Frame can become conscious, if and only if you're aware of it and know how to spot it. Rollo's goal for all of his students is to always be conscious of all Frame, both his own and especially those who disagree / challenge him. When I am conscious of both my Frame and your Frame, while you are not conscious of either Frame, I always enjoy a major advantage. Even better, philosophy is nothing more than a series of rules to determine whose Frame is better. That's all philosophy ever is. ------------------------ My Frame in this discussion was never stated, but never forgotten by me. I am a 38 year old male, with a 140 IQ, with years of reading in evolutionary biology (focusing especially on sexual competition, status, and lying), body language (focusing especially on confidence / lack-of-confidence), AnonymousConservative's r/k selection thesis and amygdala framework (focusing especially on rabbitry, trolling, and how to handle being trolled), and a near-perfect memory. Furthermore, and most importantly, I WAS THERE, so I have more direct experience with what happened. PatrickC was unaware of both his Frame and my Frame. (Hearing my Frame probably makes him annoyed, even though my Frame is true.) But his Frame goes something like this, "Well, I wasn't there...BUT. And I don't have your training....BUT. But I study philosophy, and think I can make up for the huge gaps in awareness and training by using philosophy. Not only that, but I'm going to assume that, because it's just your experience versus their experience (and they outnumber you), then you're probably wrong, and they're probably right." Now, if I told you that one of us was going to be easily defeated in philosophical "combat", while the other will have a very easy time of it, who would you bet on? And why does it matter? It matters because people who begin with Bad Frame / Wrong Frame inevitably make bad arguments, and then the choice arises: Change (by submitting to the better argument) or Rage (by unjustly attacking the person who made a better argument, usually by trying to get an entire crowd of people to attack on his behalf). You discovered this in your thread on the Gold+ forum, where I mentioned the importance of hierarchy. -------------------------- As far as his arguments go, I can dismantle them very quickly. You claim this is the most important and interesting part of my post: I claim it's the least of both. (1) He says, "Emotionally connecting with people and expressing vulnerability is how you make strong friendships with people built on mutual trust and empathy." (2) I counter-punch, "That's not true, Patrick. A strong friendship is developed if and only if connecting with people and expressing vulnerability is done with the primary focus being on Truth. Certain friendships, like between KKK-members who commit crimes, and emotionally-vulnerable people who are committed to falsehoods, give strong feelings of connection but are actually weak. They dissolve whenever someone who knows the Truth just shows up and speaks it." (3) He counter-punches, "Compared to people that don't engage in therapy and are manipulative, perhaps never realising it. Or compared to those that do that are manipulative and learn to overcome it. The fact that some manipulative people may never change, even with therapy, is not the fault of therapy. It's not particularly gone unnoticed just how manipulative you are with your own language. You continue to elevate yourself to the one that knows better and everyone else as wrong. I can't take your points seriously anymore and see this whole thread as your crude attempt at psychologically leveling with some members of the NYC group." (4) I didn't make this counter-argument, but I'll make it now. (Note, I was well-aware of my counter-argument the moment I read PatrickC's post, but decided not to post it immediately so that he could calm down a bit.) My counter-argument is to first remind everyone of My Frame versus His Frame. My Frame is objectively better because, even if you don't agree with my claims of being well-trained in certain areas, you must agree that I WAS THERE and PATRICKC was not. Why PatrickC, who wasn't there, expects his arguments to be given equal merit as someone who wasn't is beyond me. But you'll notice that PatrickC himself isn't conscious of it; he just expects to be taken equally seriously as me, even though he wasn't there. The second part of my counter-argument is to focus on PatrickC's word-usage. He says, "I continue to elevate myself as the one who knows better and the others are wrong." His language is manipulative, because it focuses on My Personhood versus Their Personhood. But someone's "personhood" takes years of intimate conversation to understand, and I only knew these people for two or three weeks, so it's literally impossible for me to attack their "personhood". Instead, the far simpler (and, therefore, most likely to be objectively correct) conclusion is, "MMX2010 continues to elevate his arguments as better, and the other arguments are wrong." If he were to make that statement, though, PatrickC would realize: (1) that this is exactly what philosophy is supposed to do, and (2) what he calls my "subjective preferences" are really "objective preferences" for Truth over Falsehood and Truth over Emotional Connection, Vulnerability, and Empathy. The first preference he cannot debate; the second one he doesn't want to debate. (5) Finally, he says, "I can't take your points seriously anymore and see this whole thread as your crude attempt at psychologically leveling with some members of the NYC group." This is a manipulative way to leave the discussion before I can respond, and sets him up to ignore my counter-argument regardless of whether it's better or worse than his argument. I pressed on this by pointing out, "There are two reasons to no longer want to engage with someone: (1) They're making bad arguments. (2) They're making better arguments, but you don't want to acknowledge this. Can you acknowledge that these two possibilities are true, even while accepting that this acknowledgement doesn't prove that I'm right about the group?" Of course he didn't. He had subconsciously promised himself that he wouldn't by leaving the conversation before I could reply. --------------------- You'll have to take my word for it that the quality of the arguments from the other members of the FDR NYC group were just as bad. As much as people claim it's bad of me to highlight their arguments while they're not here to defend them, no one operates under the assumption, "Hmmm, they're not even here to defend their arguments? Wonder if that's a bad thing?" Overall, I'm leading to something very big: the ultimate Frame of disagreement between members of the FDR community. As usual, I'm conscious of both My Frame and Their Frame, while they're unconscious of both Frames. So I expect to enjoy both a gigantic advantage and a gigantic amount of downvoting. This post is already too long, so I'll post that later.

And I think you're dead wrong about that. The value of a woman to a man, starts and ends with admiration. And I think you're wrong about that, too. The majority of men on here don't "believe in" the three-circle Venn diagram I posted at the top of the second page in this thread. They don't work out; they don't have much money; they don't study Pick-up artistry (because they're "morally opposed to it" using very bad arguments). But they're very smart and are significantly more philosophical and morally sound than 99% of the men in the dating pool. I get that philosophical and moral soundness is the most important part of a committed romantic relationship, but it's not the only part. And women, whether a man likes it or not, have never had more freedom to maximize their demands on men; their political power, economic power, and constant barrage of media encouragement empowers them to. So the three-circle Venn diagram is a requirement - not an option to be "dismissed" on "moral grounds" using "philosophy". So these men, like all men, want to be admired - but, from the perspective of most women, they're simply not admirable enough. So they stare at each other, non-empathetically: the men demanding admiration, and the women skillfully realizing (but never articulating), "The more you demand admiration, the more I know that you don't naturally deserve it, and so I'm not going to give it to you!" ----------------------- You mentioned earlier that the primary value of women to men starts and begins with sex. I said it starts and begins with admiration. Here's an example of what happens when a woman loses sense of the importance of her admiration for him. In another thread, an anonymous female said: The following two things are true: (1) No woman likes to play the role of a man's mother. (2) Her attitude, where she associates cleaning up after him into "being his mother" is entirely unpleasant to be around. The following two things are speculative: (1) Her husband almost certainly thinks of his mother as emotional abusive and distant. (2) She never considered that equating herself to his mother, and thereby implying that he still needs his emotionally abusive and distant mother, is easily the most abusive thing anyone can do to him. Now it may turn out this his mother was a Peaceful Parent, but I'm betting she was the opposite - simply because 98% of mothers are the opposite. So saying a grown man needs his mother is a rather unpleasant thing to do. "But I only wanted him to clean up after himself!" I know, lady. I get it. "It's not right that I have to do it! No doubt. It's disgusting, slovenly, and sad. "But I didn't know what else to do! I tried everything!" Did you try focusing solely on his good sides, especially when you felt that familiar rage welling up within you right when you decide to put away his dishes, so that you'd be better emotionally prepared to pick up after him? What? Lemme think about it; there.... (interrupting) Did you make it your personal policy to offer him two compliments a day, related to his legitimate strengths, so that he WOULD NOT see your (I assume, constant) demands that he pick up after himself as the primary and most intense emotional way that you connected to him? What? Exactly.... ---------------------- So the loss of her admiration drove her to being more and more unpleasant. And to the surprise of no one but her, they're separated. You'll notice that I didn't advise her to create admiration for certain traits he did not possess. I advised her to focus on, and more frequently voice, her admiration for qualities that he does possess. But few, if any, women are taught how to do this. That's how the enmity slowly but steadily accrued in their relationship - a scenario which repeats itself in hundreds of thousands of relationships across America and the West.

The traditional problem has been replaced by the modern problem, which few people know about and fewer people dare speak about. The modern problem is that, because women have more rights than ever, they're free to simultaneously pursue the cavemen and the nice guys. (It's called having a Great Boyfriend, and seeing the Pool Boy, ideally, twelve times a year.) Rollo Tomassi is the author who best describes (dispassionately and without cynicism) this simultaneous pursuit of two different types of men. He even coined a phrase for it, "Alpha fucks, Beta bucks." And since the mechanism explaining the phenomenon is tied to her menstrual cycle, then all women including virtuous ones(!), have these conflicting desires and must deal with them. http://therationalmale.com/2014/12/17/estrus/ http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/25/your-friend-menstruation/ The modern problem means that only the rarest of men who can combine Alpha Qualities with Beta Qualities, (fine-tuned to match specific days of her ovulatory cycle), can enjoy (relative) relationship security. Stefan is one of these men, which (ironically!) makes his advice irrelevant (and dangerous!) to most men. The rest of men (roughly 95% or more of us) can either (1) Remain alpha only, and complain that women don't really care about our feelings - but, hey, at least we're having sex with lots of them. (2) Remain beta only, and complain that women don't really care about our feelings, nor do they want to have sex with us - but, hey, at least we're virtuous. (3) Maximize both our alpha and beta qualities, knowing that it's all an act - which will take time to develop, and which will cause heartache and pain when we're learning. ---------- Because of the modern problem, men like utopian who want women to "care about his feelings" usually end up hitched (at about age 34) to a 32 year old woman who cares about his feelings (with severe limitations) approximately 22 days out of every 28 days. The other six days are spent hating his feelings, and blaming him for not sufficiently manning up. All of this to, once again, point to the three circle Venn diagram and say, "Those circles aren't optional. They're required."

Here's the other thing you probably don't get. Your mother's treatment of you made it extremely difficult to express what you want, and then act according to that expression. Simple stuff like, "I want a beer, so I'm going to the fridge.", you can do. Complex stuff like, "What kind of man do I want, and where should I go to meet him?", you cannot. I get enormous flak on this board for recommending non-therapy based solutions, but here you go. Harder Solution: This is the Harder Solution because you might not be able to do it. If you can't do it, move on to the easier solution. (1) Take two pieces of paper. (2) Entitle one of them Things That I Keep Doing That Are A Poor Reflection Of Me, and fill it out. (3) Entitle the other Things I Don't Regularly Do That Would Reflect Better On Me As A Person. (4) Bring those two lists with you, everywhere, and ensure that you're following the second list (and not following the first list), as much as humanly possible. Easier Solution: If you can't make the two lists, don't fret. Like I said, you probably don't get how hard it is for you to express your wants. So the easier solution is to just keep a small journal detailing what you did, at what times, and how you felt. No lengthy details of your feelings allowed! Just "7am, woke up, felt 6 out of 10". Do that for an entire week. Then review which activities made you feel better, and do them more frequently next week. (Within limits, of course. Don't drink every day just because it made you feel great the last time you did it.) Easiest Solution: This is also scary, but if you don't trust your judgment around people, and don't know how to express your desires, find an objectively measurable social cause - (like puppy rescue) - and participate in it at routine times, no matter what (except for legitimate emergencies). Grade your interactions with people solely on whether they helped you do a better job at learning how to best rescue puppies. Don't judge their character, or intelligence, or anything like that: just puppy rescue helpfulness. As you get better at rescuing puppies, you'll begin to respect your judgment. And as you meet more people, only some of whom actually care about puppy rescue, you'll begin to respect your judgment about people, too. Don't fall in love with anyone during this period. Just make it a habit of going to puppy rescue and pleasantly interacting with the people who go there.

Rollo's article here nails it. http://therationalmale.com/2015/04/07/admiration-respect/ Please read the entire article: it's worth it.

I know you dismiss me a trolling, but two things are true: (1) I agree with your assessment of the flaws in Stefan's reasoning - so strongly, in fact, that I want to have a Call-in show, within three months, to highlight the weaknesses of his arguments - (particularly in light of what I've learned through Game and Pick Up Artistry), (2) I don't think you're living practically at all. I think I posted this before. But during an FDR NYC Meet-Up Group, about seven members (voiced by the arguments of one member) spent 90 minutes criticizing my communication style and "dominating" and my emotional demeanor as "not-empathetic". (Have you ever had seven people criticize essential parts of your personality for ninety minutes? It's eye-popping.) One member, 24 years old (compared to my 38 years old) constantly was asking me, "Was that empathetic?" and "Are you being empathetic right now?" About thirty minutes after the focus left me, I mentioned this diagram, outlining what women pursue in men - especially when they're young and free to do so. I set up my argument by first saying, "You cannot use an excess of six-pack abs and money to make up for a lack of philosophy." (Entire group nods.) But then I immediately say, "But you also cannot use an excess of philosophy to make up for a lack of six-pack abs and money." (The entire group stopped nodding, and fell deathly quiet.) Except for one guy, (the 24 year old who had been harping on my lack-of-empathy), who said, "You don't need six pack abs and money to attract a virtuous woman." To which I replied, "Philosophically, your argument is 100% true, but you're not empathizing with a virtuous woman's desire for six-pack abs and money." From his body language, I knew my remark deeply stung him. But he didn't offer a counter-argument. Then I wasn't invited back to the next meeting. ---------------------- The above story equally applies to you. You mention your embrace of philosophy, and use it to denigrate everyone else who isn't philosophical. But your argument doesn't work unless you're also physically fit, financially well-off, skilled in Pick-up artistry, and have a passionate life of your own. Yes, yes, yes, I know that women are propped up by a constant barrage of social media attention and feminist you-go-girl-isms - but deliberately offering women much less than what they want, so that you can shame them for wanting it isn't a good strategy. It's not only fundamentally lacking in empathy, (which nullifies your expectation that a woman ought to be empathetic towards you), but it also makes you vulnerable to just one man who offers her more. Which means you not only have to shame (basically) the entire female gender for wanting more than they deserve, but you now also have to shame (basically) every man who has a woman you want. "He's only interested in her for her looks; secretly, he's a dumbass." "She must be fucking stupid for wanting to be with him." - (which, sadly, is an argument that Stefan himself has made....an argument so wrong that I have enormous empathy for what you're going through). "Pick Up artistry tries to control women!" - (but railing at their stupid mate choices doesn't?I?) Since your strategy is so impractical, I don't think you live practically. I think you're burnt out, sad, and lacking in experience with women but you're morally opposed (partially due to Stefan's bad arguments) to learning Game and Pick-Up Artistry. And being stuck, without implementing an imperfect solution, isn't practical.

This won't be easy for me to post, because I didn't sleep well and my mind is racing - but I hope it is helpful. I'm a big fan of The Last Psychiatrist, because he has the sneaky ability to punch you square in the face with your own inadequacies and force you to either Change or Rage. Based on his readings, I think you're trying to hold onto two contradictory arguments: (1) Your traumatic childhood, for which I'm deeply sorry you experienced, has greatly damaged your ability to, as an adult, connect with others in a loving way. (2) You don't see the need to change yourself in order to "fit into a corrupt world". You cannot have both of these arguments at the same time. ------------------- This article is probably the "nicest" one, in that TLP isn't punching you in the face as harshly as he normally does. http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/10/marc_marons_mid-life_crisis.html ------------------ And my opinion of you, based solely on reading your posts in this thread and perusing TLP's work, is that you think the cure for your loneliness is in your head. "If I could only delve more deeply into my psyche, and discover where it went to hell, then I could turn a series of knobs to their proper settings. Then my loneliness will be cured!" But I think the cure for your loneliness exists outside of your head. Pick someone. Anyone. Learn what they like. And provide him/her with that. (Naturally, you're new to this, so you should set very tight limits on time-investment and energy-investment. But you should still practice social interactions by primarily focusing on what others want, not on what you feel.) And if investing in individual people is too scary, pick a collective cause. Attend regular meetings. Volunteer to do extra work. Go from there.

Best case scenario? (In my opinion, thus not-an-argument.) Find a much younger woman, when you reach approximately 35-40, and have a child with her. Don't give your current generation of women the satisfaction of marriage. (They're always hoping that someone their own age will marry them, which led to the astute observation, "Modern American women are constantly trying to give as little of their fertility and beauty as possible to their future husbands.")

You cannot force yourself to love yourself, anymore than you can force yourself to get an erection while staring at the naked body of a repulsive woman. You only get to love yourself as a natural consequence of Being Right, Being Brave, Being Driven, and Chasing Your Dreams. You are one of many people who think that the feeling is the destination, rather than accepting that the feeling is the inevitable result of another, more important process - (that you've almost certainly been neglecting, which causes your problem).

Push harder, JP. We not only manipulate children, we also manipulate adults and adults expect other adults to manipulate other adults. Simple example: If you think part of being a good scientist is communicating complicated truths in easily-digestible format for the masses, then you think manipulation is part of being a good scientist. (The manipulative part of this argument is that no one argues that the masses are responsible for their relative inability to understand complex scientific truths. But this argument is still a call for manipulation, rather than a call for the clarion expression of truth.)

DaVinci, forgive me for being presumptuous, and definitely tell me whether I'm wrong, but I think you're asking this question because you're having "strange emotional reactions" to a certain situation that you don't know are legitimate or illegitimate (valid or invalid). Am I right?

Absolutely. I'm trying to push that discovery into as many areas as possible to make more distant speculations. I know that some of these speculations are so far-reaching that they'll be difficult to prove, but I'll find them interesting all the same. My biggest emotional experience in learning this, though, is emotional relief. I no longer expect women-in-general, nor society-as-a-whole to show me compassion and empathy whenever I'm expressing emotional vulnerability. Because of this, I feel relieved from the expectation that I communicate my every emotional vulnerability to people. The woman I'm currently enamored with is fully capable of hearing my emotional vulnerabilities, but she has said, (in no uncertain terms), that she feels "icky" whenever she has to teach me things. Her "ickiness" encourages me to deal with whatever emotional frailties I may experience outside of her emotional view - which is better for both of us. I've been reading a lot of Rollo Tomassi, and his concept of Amused Mastery is his end-goal for all readers. http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/14/amused-mastery/ The first (seemingly harsh) lesson of the link I provided is, "Most people strongly believe that most of your feelings do not matter." The second lesson (which turns the harshness into cold indifference) is, "Now that you know that most people believe that the majority of your feelings are insignificant, you must turn your desire to share your feelings into a desire for productive action. The third lesson (which turns the cold indifference into bemused indifference) is, "Now that I've been living my life according to productive action for a very long time, I've discovered that those jerks were right the entire time! The majority of my feelings are insignificant, particularly the ones related to fear, doubt, uncertainty, bitterness, and laziness." The fourth lesson (which turns the bemused indifference into amused mastery) is, "Now that I've realized, for a long enough time, that the majority of my feelings are insignificant, I've also realized that the majority of other peoples' feelings are similarly insignificant, particularly the ones related to fear, doubt, uncertainty, insecurity, bitterness, and laziness. I can now be amused by their declarations of heartfelt emotion, because I've learned to laugh at my own declarations of heartfelt emotion." tl;dr - You can not achieve amused mastery without internalizing that the majority of your feelings are insignificant to others - and that this is a GOOD THING.

No way. Most of our ancestors followed the K strategy out of sheer necessity. The fundamental marker that determines whether r or K is followed is resource availability, and resources have always been extremely limited in (practically) every culture from the B.C. time periods until now. America and Western Europe are r-selected because of government subsidies, and thus everyone's sexual and relationship behaviors are "strange".

If you're not 100% confident in your ability to handle these situations, you shouldn't bother. It takes an amazing amount of philosophical strength, emotional control, body language control, voice-tone control, and social awareness to effectively handle these situations. If you're short in any of these, then your number one goal (if you choose to become strong enough to handle these situations) is to strengthen those deficient areas. Since self-attacking doesn't form strength in those areas, self-attacking is pointless - (and is a sure sign that you're not currently strong enough to intervene).

So what? What does this truth mean to you?