In my youth at Buddhist meditation seminars the idea would often be repeated that if you want to fill a cup with knowledge, that you need to empty the cup first.
So I spend a lot of time on this blog just trying to empty cups – trying to kill stupid memes that will prevent the happiness and life that you want.
It is likely that nothing I can say will be able to properly empty your cup – we are all embedded within our reference experiences and no blog is going to alter your reference experiences.
Another Buddhist notion is that the only effective path to change is threefold:
Reading about how women work on blogs is only helpful if you also think about it and put the knowledge into practice. Being a keyboard jockey will 100 percent always lead to wrong views. You need to anchor what you read inside your own real lived personal experience, and contemplate about it to get an appropriate fit, for you. It’s not enough to get lots of experiences if you don’t read about how to contextualize them and then contemplate to further contextualize and embody the experiences.
No one can give you the truth about how women behave, because women are all slightly different and will behave towards you differently based on what you bring to the table. So you can get some good pointers, but never the Truth. You need to CREATE the truth.
Hearing, contemplating, and action will always lead to different, very personal viewpoints and experiences.
The goal is internalized real viewpoints based on real lived experience.
And to continuously update your viewpoints as you continuosly add new information and experiences – and here is the crucial part – all this must be done within the framework of a goal. A lifestyle goal. There is no such thing as agnostic information. Any viewpoint is towards a purpose.
The “truths” about women that men read on blogs can be extraordinarily dangerous, because they are gonzo truths; embodied truths. True only to that particular life that CREATED that world and worldview. Women relate to you very specifically based upon what world YOU create.
I suggest that a good goal for your life experiences, which will create your personal and unique embodied world view, is to get better with women and become more happy and give and receive fulfilling love and value. That’s a lofty goal, but an excellent challenge that adds meaning and value to your own life and the lives of others.
Keyboard jockey knowledge is worse than useless. It’s a diorama. Don’t live in a diorama – that will only get in the way of embodying joy.
I have a theory that many people who have women troubles, and are therefore seeking answers online, have some very core issues that can’t be addressed or resolved through online advice. Some people did not have the healthiest pair bonding and care with their mothers and caregivers as babies and during infancy, and this leads to Cluster A personality disorders, such as schizoid attachment disorder and paranoid views of society.
I don’t know how to address that, or even if it is addressable. You’d need to look into that yourself, and perhaps start a long journey with therapists of various types. I suggest that no single type of therapy will be ultimately effective; you’ll want to include body centered therapies along with cognitive therapies, and also explore other options, such as visualizations and hypnotherapy.
Here is an example of one type of problem Cluster A issues lead to:
John Cleese talks about extremism as a manifestation of Cluster A personality disorder. Both paranoid and schizoid are cluster A personality disorders.
Roosh is paranoid schizoid and through both heavy handed banning and overmoderation, plus attracting like minded followers of his thoughts, his remaining commenters skew disproportionately towards cluster A. This leads to a feedback amplification of paranoia and attachment aversion.
“It’s all OTHER people’s fault we aren’t getting the women we deserve!”
Most men ultimately want a girlfriend as their goal with women, but when learning about how to seduce, come across ideas that they’ll fare better emulating an R selected bad boy, and faking it until they make it, and adopting dark triad traits, and avoiding provider qualities.
There is insight buried deep inside these ideas, however the presentation is too surface, too gonzo and twisted by twisted lives, and those ideas are nearly certain to get in the way of attaining what you want. These ideas present themselves as meta, but it’s a very tricky shadow in the cave illusion. Those are highly filtered and feedback-amplified views, not meta in the least.
The core insight of these (very false) ideas is that you need to get the true reference experiences and internalize them of being a dominant leader of the women in your life.
You can’t actually fake that. As you date, perhaps read pre 2012 Roissy and maybe my comments on it. It’s unfortunate that the comment section and current articles are no longer worth recommending, as the contemplation part of hearing, contemplaing, and action is quite important. Commenting can really help you get better with women. So can blogging.
It’s my expience that dating and having girlfriends, and learning to be dominant and sexy and fun within these long term relationships, leads a man to internalize the so called “confidence” that women are supposed to find attractive. The more reference experiences you have of women treating you well, and of being able to maintain strong boundaries and arouse the utmost best behaviour out of the women you date, the more your body language will tell women that you are valuable and fun.
So this is completely different than R selected bad boy, although it is high-socio-sexual score body language. You are in a secret society, but it’s not of pump and dumpers.
It’s of romantic libertines. You love women, and have had many, and they nearly always fall head over heels in love with you, and you treat them as best as you know how, learn from them, respect them, and try your best to enjoy life with each other.
Then when you are on a date, this will pour out of you – even when you are silent. Every thing you say will be congruent with this, not because you learned a routine, but because you lived a real life.
I’ll try to be more detailed in the coming days of how to find and amplify positive reference experiences, if there is interest. It’s a lot of work to go into detail, and I fear that most readers are far too cluster A or suffer other devlopmental cognitive issues to care.
So I’ll ask my readers to let me know if you are even interested in the comments section. I know I’m viscious as hell in the comments section, but it’s not that scary in there.
Update: My reply to Jack20
Jack, I had asked you to read my 100 comments on Rollo’s blog before I replied.
And yet now you ask me if I believe that alpha fux and beta bux is are not dynamics that happen.
I’m pretty sure that I spent 10 or maybe 20 comments repeating over and over that the lover dynamic and provider dynamic are real, but that people keep refusing to use the word AND. Alpha fucks and beta bucks AND alpha bucks.
It’s kind of infuriating that people can’t hear that one simple word. I even wrote a post on the fact that people can’t process the word and.
Any alpha can be a provider with no risk or diminismment to his alpha status.
Rollo sees the world from the perspective of a beta bux. That’s his whole world.
He can’t even see that it’s completely inconsequential that some guys get treated like a provider.
Don’t be a beta provider.
That has NOTHING to do with don’t be a provider.
He keeps referencing a study of women’s ovulatory hormone changes, but ALWAYS neglects to mention that the changes don’t happen when the woman is partnered with a high testosterone man.
Also he NEVER mentions that high sociosexual score men don’t have their testosterone drop over the long term when pair bonded.
Which are perfect examples of how intellectually slimy that guy is. A better example is simply his writing style; he writes to obfuscate instead of to clarify.
It’s completely irrelevant information that people can be taken for a ride and be treated like shit by their partners; other than as a spur to become an attractive man. It has NOTHING to do with provision.
Just become an attractive man – that’s the first and last job, and being a provider has nothing to do with it. You have to be attractive anyway, provider or not.
If Rollo had any clue about this, he’d be singing the praises of being a dominant lover who appreciates pair bonding, and might make a blog around the theme of “contemplative dominance for the modern man”.
He’s completely stuck inside a world that he himself created, and talks from that world, to people in that world.
That’s totally the wrong tactic.
That world is irrelevant.
Don’t be in that world.