I noticed years ago that many Asian females seemed unable to process statements that included the word IF.  When I tried to articulate this and share my insight with others, it seemed ludicrous to everyone.

And yet whenever I would say to some Face-enculturated SEA chick something like “IF you keep nagging me then it makes me not like you”, or “IF you won’t stop chatting with Facebook boys then I can’t trust you”, they come back with “Oh, so you don’t like me!”  or “Oh, so you are saying that you don’t trust me!”  The IF portion of the statement is ignored, and all they can focus on is what comes after the if.  As if they have no agency or ability to choose my reaction to them.

I don’t think this is merely a manipulative strategy.  I think it’s a cognitive error.  Some people genuinely have difficulty processing IF statements, especially when they are about very emotional issues, such as how their FACE is perceived.

It is well known that some very influential modules of our brain are not able to process logical statements.

If you’ve ever studied hypnosis, you’ll know that you can’t use negatives or if statements when you make suggestions. The subconscious simply can’t understand them. You can’t hypnotise someone to NOT want sex. You could instead hypnotize someone to associate sex with something else. Negatives just don’t register.

Politicians are also coached to not deny any wrong doing, but to instead distract and reframe, because the denial can’t be processed.  “I didn’t have sex with that woman” is emotionally processed as “I am being accused of having sex with that woman”.  The negative simply does not register.  We don’t think like our language suggests to us that we think.

Once you realize this it sheds some light on why many people struggle with AND statements.

It might seem preposterous that such a simple word as AND is difficult to understand.  It’s one of the simplest words that the youngest children quickly grasp.  And yet most adults can’t understand AND statements.

Afox commented on my last post AND is the most difficult word in the English language

The problem with Fudge’s line of thinking here is that there aren’t two types of sex.

This is an observation I was talking about in my last comment here about the map and the territory.

Do women have sex for validation and transactionally? Yes. That creates the map of “Validation sex” and “transactional sex.”

The minute you use that map to place a woman into either one, the map is no longer the territory – it’s a hyper0reality or abstraction where women fit into one of two camps.

Ultimately, you can’t have both a river and a cloud represented on a 2-D map accurately, because they both occupy the same space. It’s the same with people.

All of us are made up of competing ideologies at all times. It’s not like sometimes you’ll have sex with a girl “just for validation” or “just to impress your friends” because ultimately your dick wouldn’t get hard. But undoubtedly validation does play a role in pursuing girls sometimes.

Girls are exactly the same. It’s not like girls consciously say “oh yeah I want to get validation from that guy because he has bright blue eyes” or “I really want to have sex with him because he’s seven feet tall.” They are attracted at a certain level to physical characteristics, and at a different level to other things – personality, charisma, wealth.

As for wealth itself, it is clearly a means of getting “valuation sex.” (Whatever that means.) Girl sees strong, muscular guy – imagines what her life will be like in the future when she’s having sex with this beautiful stranger, hanging off his arm, getting him to bring her groceries in from the car.

Girl sees uber-rich guy – imagines what her life will be like with all those things that money buys – getting sexed on a comfortable mattress, getting taken to Paris, being treated like a princess.

Those are both examples of romantic fantasies with no difference between them. It’s always transactional. It’s always validational.

Thinking in terms of “does she like you” or “is she in it for something else” is exactly what Xsplat talked about in his Rollo criticism; you’re either “alpha” where she wants you just because, or “beta” in which case you might as well MGTOW and buy whores.

It’s a false dichotomy, an overly simplified map, and the quicker you expand your mental models to incorporate a more nuanced thinking about human ambition the happier you’ll be.

Dichotomies are even more dangerous when they are not false.

I seriously believe that the word AND is not a word that many people can understand, and it really may be a word that most people can’t.

I’ve heard that our attention has a limit of how many objects it can track at once, and our short term memory has a limit on how many objects it can hold at once. I’ve heard it it said that famous investor Warren Buffet is unusually good at his job precisely because he is able to hold an unusual number of variables in mind at once. Multi-variable thinking seems simply beyond the capacity of most people. Mechanically – the brain either can’t do it, or actively struggles AGAINST allowing it to be done.

It seems a silly and stupid thing to say that most people can’t understand what the word AND means, but it’s actually very accurate. We know what IF, AND, and AND/OR mean, but most people can’t use IF, AND, and AND/OR statements at the same time as being emotional, or when going with their strongest gut feeling.

I haven’t heard of it being studied before, but it seems that philosophically MOST people simply are not capable of cognizing multi-variable views of the world.

And then you get people who can do it, but always revert back to simpler gut feelings.

I suggest that on some level AND statements simply do not register. People choose one image, OR they choose another image, but they CAN NOT see both at the same time.  EITHER alpha fucks, OR beta bucks.

I see it ALL the time in the manosphere.  Very few people want to see sexual marketplace value as a gestalt of multiple variables.  The last time I read Heartiste he kept insisting that fundamentally all attraction boils down to confidence.  I still come across many people who choose to believe and proselytise this.

Heartiste is a very intelligent man, and yet he has great difficulty with AND statements.

Rollo also refuses all evidence that suggests that money can inspire comfort AND sexual lust responses.  Rollo is one of the smartest manosphere writers out there, and is on the far right end of the bell curve for pattern recognition.  And yet even he has difficulties with AND statements.

Parts of our mind can do well with IF, AND, AND/OR statements, and some people can code up virtual realities using the four statements of IF, AND, OR, and AND/OR.

But I suggest that it is not those modules of the mind that we use when we choose what is real.  I suggest that other modules in our mind are not capable of using those statements, and those are very often, if not MOST often the modules that we use when we decide what is true.

As children we can not process multivariable personalities.  This is why cartoons are so popular with children.  You have the good guys, and the bad guys.  You don’t have good guys who sometimes do bad things, because children are not capable of processing AND.  They only know how to process OR.

AND statements don’t give us immediate emotional certainty and immediately show us our relationship to things.  It is not soothing to have AND statements.  It is soothing to have OR statements.

That is why you will never hear any politician trying to engage an audience in a way that is different than how cartoons engage children.

Beware high contrast, cartoonish world views.  Beware all mental maps of the socio-sexual marketplace that are not held together in a web of AND statements.


Relevant: http://human-stupidity.com/science/evolution-psychology-darwin/to-justify-our-moral-judgments-we-invent-victims-even-if-there-are-none

I have vivid memories of my Kindergarden teacher “Madamoiselle” drawing Venn diagrams on the blackboard to explain the logic of shapes. Round objects, blue objects, triangular objects, red objects.

I always assumed that since that was a kindergaren lesson that all adults naturally organized their categories in terms of Venn diagrams, as I can’t help but do. It takes concentrated effort to realize that people not only don’t naturally think in Venn diagrams, but that teaching Venn diagrams doesn’t automatically transform HOW they think.  For me that Kindergaren lesson was like seeing Two Girls One Cup. It was something that could never be unseen.  It wasn’t a revelation, as it was just showing what was already too obvious to bother pointing out, but the circles made a nice graphical representation that can’t help but permanently imprint a person’s thought processes.  Can it?

Here is a quote from a discussion of how high IQ people tend to have different thought processes:

I have noticed my intuitive thinking patterns seem to involve a kind of rapidfire simultaneous Venn diagramming and very abstract analogizing.

Another quote from the same discussion:

I wonder if it is a return to a dogmatic extreme not seen since the dark ages after the collapse of the Roman empire; people are seeking to grasp at any solidity when the world they live in is changing in either physical, governmental, or informational ways. Those with IQ’s less than 145 may simply be wired to need relief from uncertainty.

A Venn diagram allows for “vision-logic”, which is holding a multitude of variables coherently in mind at once. It bypasses the limits of our restricted attention to allow parallel thought processes.

I suspect that while a very small minority of people can’t stop themselves from thinking this way, a larger minority can think this way with effort when not ego challenged, a larger minority will think this way during peak experiences, and most people ACTIVELY fight AGAINST ever thinking this way.

Polititians will NEVER speak to peole who can think multi-variably. The job of the polititian is to give you a simple worldview that you believe is within reach, if only you would vote for him.

Simple world views are ALWAYS wrong. ALWAYS more wrong than right. Always a cartoon. Always a mistake to choose to believe. Always a lazy cognitive error, that you are evolved to have for simple fight or flight analysis, that can also be co-opted (especially by those who want power over you) into group cohesion tribal signifiers of group identity politics. Yes, we all believe in the same God and sports team! Go Chicago!