Sunday, November 11, 2012

Every woman is the White Queen

Possibly the most controversial Game-related advice I give to men is my maxim of never placing any significant import on what women say, particularly concerning anything related to themselves.  And while it's understandable that some women might find this to be offensive, the observable fact of the matter is that my advice is arguably irrelevant because it is quite often impossible to take them at their word.

Why?  Because their word is so often at odds with their other words.  Consider this fascinating pair of recent assertions by a woman (correction: two different women) at Susan's place.

I can’t flirt for the life of me either....  I’m a champion flirt when I want to be.
Now, this particular example turned out to be a bad one, (the second woman was apparently quoting a different woman in the first part), but the topic is worth contemplating even so and I'll replace it later with an actual self-contradiction when one inevitably surfaces.  I'm not sure what the reason for this tendency towards self-contradiction is, but my impression is that a) it begins at a very early age, as I've seen it exhibited in girls as young as three, and, b) it features some sort of connection between the expressed female perception of reality and the way that she wishes others to perceive her at the moment.

What I find remarkable is that if questioned with sufficient delicacy, a woman will often admit to simultaneously believing two intrinsically contradictory things.  This may help explain why women are very credible liars who nevertheless tend to unnecessarily expose their own lies over time.  If they actually believe what they are saying in the interests of convincing their audience of it, they cannot have any awareness of the fact that what they are saying now directly contradicts what they told someone, sometimes that very same audience, previously.

If it feels true, it is true.  But since feelings change, what is true now is not necessarily what was true before.  So, if we apply that concept to the obvious contradiction presented by Susan's commenters, and combine it with what we know to be the female tendency towards negative communication, we can retroactively "read her mind" to a certain extent.

"I can't flirt for the life of me either" = I don't want women to think I am shallow, submissive, or overly obsessed with pleasing men like those flirtatious women are."

"I’m a champion flirt when I want to be." = I don't want women to think I am incapable of influencing my husband in a feminine way at will.

Notice that there is no contradiction between the two negative desires.  It is the process of translating the negative wish to the positive assertion that produces the contradiction.  So, in addition to being useful in the avoidance of acting on false information, observing these contradictions and understanding what lies beneath them can serve as a useful window into a woman's mind.  Or, on occasion, two different women's minds.

29 comments:

Jimmydom said...

Similarly a woman will say "I'm not interested in dating anyone right now."

A guy will assume this means "at this stage in my life I'm taking a break from dating." A woman means "At this very instance that I am talking to you I'm not interested in dating anyone but that very well may change the second we are done talking or when I meet a cute guy at the coffee shop, so what I really mean is that I'm not interested in dating you."

Athor Pel said...

Men: Say what they mean and mean what they say.

Women: Say what they feel and feel what they say.


Is that about right?

MackPUA said...

Another way to put it is, women generate their own feedback, men wait for feedback

Men radiate, they are explosive

Women implode, they are implosive

Men radiate energy, ie spread knowledge, spread resources, build civilisation etc

Women concentrate energy inwards, theyre implosive

Basic zen & chi philosophy ...

Chinese philosophers knew very well about game, thousands of years ago ... lol

MackPUA said...

Women are also forward reward thinking ...

That is in the absence of feedback, they always transliterate the situation into a positive

Or in the absence of a reward, theyll try & create the emotives of a reward, even though there is no reward, or any benefits of a reward ...

Ie staying with an alpha, asshole, even though she's well past being relevant ...

Women generating their own emotional response, one of the most hideous traits of women

VD said...

Is that about right?

More or less. Men obviously lie as well, of course, but the difference is that they know very well when they are not telling the truth. Women often know when they are not telling the truth, but that is not necessarily the case. One could quite reasonably argue that despite being more prevalent, female dishonesty is less pernicious than male dishonesty.

Steve Canyon said...

I'm curious, but wouldn't one's definition of the perniciousness of lying be dependent on the intent being evil or on the effects being evil? A man knows he's lying and intends to lie. That may or may not cause evil effects. The evil of lying in his case is based on the intent to deceive. A woman may not know she's lying, but the effects of her lie can be evil. The "I know full well you're the father." cases immediately come to mind as an example.

Obviously the biblical commandment is to not bear false witness. For those women who don't know they are not telling the truth, is not knowing any less a sin?

Anonymous said...

"Obviously the biblical commandment is to not bear false witness. For those women who don't know they are not telling the truth, is not knowing any less a sin?"

I see it this way. Women who are generally nice, compassionate, moral and emotionally healthy will, like men, sometimes lie. Because they are women when they lie they will not be conscious of it quite so often. Women who are generally not nice, not compassionate, moral and are mentally unhealthy will tend to lie more and about far more important things. Because they are women they will be less conscious of that they are lying when they do it. THe difference between the first group of women and the second group of women is huge in terms of morality. The sine lies not so much in wether they are conscious of the lie in the moment but in the person they generally are. An evil women just won`t have any qualms about telling outrages lies that hurts people a lot. If she understands that in the moment or not is inconsequential because most women would not do such things because their compassion and conscience would have stopped them. So no, women don`t get a free ride in terms of lying and sin at all you just have to evaluate them more in a general sense.

Secondly, I think almost everyone has missed on important point. THere are levels of not knowing you are lying. If a woman truly, truly does not understand she is not speaking the truth there will be nothing in her body language and voice that reveals she is not speaking the truth. My observation is that women will say and insist on things they want to be true and believe in the moment but have various degrees of doubt despite generally believing it. So, if you ask them are you sure about this they will say yes and believe it. If you ask them are you truly sure about this, you don`t have any doubt, then good women will say eeeeeh uhhhm and pick up on the tiny doubt that is there and start to question it. If I say that it seems like you believe this but also that you have some doubt, but thats ok, then they will suddenly see that they didn`t really, really believe it.

So whenever a woman speaks look for congruence and look for slight changes in voice etc. to measure the degree to which she believes what she "believes".

Cryan Ryan said...

Many women are aware that they use contradictory language. When it is pointed out, their reaction is usually to laugh it off and continue to talk, sometimes reversing their reversals and then reversing them back again.

This is why many/most women are content to accept the guidance of a self confident man. They struggle on their own, and they know it.

Many times my wife has been relieved that I was there to gather the facts, look at them with her, and then to suggest an appropriate course of action.

Win/win.

Anonymous said...

Spot on: "If it feels true, it is true. But since feelings change, what is true now is not necessarily what was true before."

Whether the extant feelings are in your (male) benefit or your harm, this is true.

I have a perfect wife. Yet the above is true and she tries to inculcate it to our children (unconsciously.)

Remember 'be strong, quit your self like men' not only do your children count on it, but your wife does, too.

Explicate the 'weaker vessel' metaphor and you'll come to a right relationship.

Anonymous said...

OT but I found this so interesting I wanted to spread it:

http://www.menweb.org/femexpos.htm

taterearl said...

"Obviously the biblical commandment is to not bear false witness. For those women who don't know they are not telling the truth, is not knowing any less a sin?"

Part of sinning is knowing it is a sin and doing it anyway. In that case God must judge women different from men. In someways it might be easier for men to get into heaven because they abstractly know right from wrong...but in some ways it might be easier for women to get into heaven due to lack of awareness.

Then again I don't know if God judges under the "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" principle.

Stickwick said...

The easiest way to tell when you should disregard what a woman is saying is when she starts a declaration with, "I'm the kind of woman who ... " As VD said, it's just a reflection of how she wants you to see her or how she wants to see herself. Even if she makes a more direct statement like, "I enjoy XYZ" you can't necessarily take it seriously, unless you have evidence that she actually does enjoy XYZ. She may be indicating she likes the idea of XYZ, while the reality is different. For instance, I used to tell people l liked traveling, because traveling sounded like a lot of fun. Once I really examined whether I enjoyed myself when I was on trips, it turns out my statement was inaccurate -- I really don't like traveling.

I'm glad VD made the distinction between deliberate deception and the sort of self-deception that is often at play in women's minds. I dunno if it's hard-wiring or the way women are brought up, but in my experience women engage in self-examination and introspection to a much lesser degree than men, and that's why men perceive that women don't seem to know their own minds.

Cail Corishev said...

The Catholic view is that it's only mortal sin if you know it's a sin and you do it of your own free will, and un-absolved mortal sin is the only kind that keeps you out of heaven.

That seems straightforward enough, but the tricky parts are the meaning of "know" and "free will." Today, many people set the bar for those so high that it's nearly impossible to reach them. Their image of Hell is Satan, Hitler, and Dahmer sitting around a card table waiting for a fourth, while everyone else slipped into Heaven on a technicality. They think, "Yeah, I know it was a sin to sleep with my spouse's best friend, but did I really know it fully at the time? After all, I wasn't really thinking when I did it. And since I was abused as a child, I have these urges to seek affection through inappropriate sex, so I don't really have total free will in the matter. I'm good to go!"

Traditionally, it wasn't defined that way at all. Yes, ignorance mattered, but the only people considered truly ignorant of sin were the seriously mentally handicapped. And everyone was assumed to have free will, whether our particular hardships worked against it or not. So it's probably not as easy to weasel out of responsibility as people think.

I've had a woman look me directly in the eye and lie straight to my face, contradicting things she'd told me a few days before, and mean it with every ounce of her being. She was probably BPD, though (and maybe a few other things). I'm not sure a normal, healthy woman could do that. Yes, their emotional state does tend to alter their perception of the truth, but I don't think most of them come completely unhinged from reality. On some level they know something isn't right, and you can read the hedging in their body language. Only the really messed up ones can create a complete enough alternative reality that they don't give off a dishonest vibe at all.

Philalethes said...

Anonymous said...

OT but I found this so interesting I wanted to spread it:
http://www.menweb.org/femexpos.htm


Thanks, very interesting.

Martel said...

This stuff cracks me up. So true.

Anyhow, to try to put a positive spin on this whole "my reality is reality" thing, I think one of its positive applications might be in regards to child-rearing. To a mother, what's good for her child has to be ojectively good. After all, who else is going to fight for her kids.

Of course, this becomes laughable when you see mothers claiming their thug sons shouldn't go to prison just because they shot all five employees of some pizza joint execution style. "He's such a good boy! How could they? He's sorry! Really!"

Martel said...

My BAAAAAABBBBBBYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!

taterearl said...

"Anyhow, to try to put a positive spin on this whole "my reality is reality" thing, I think one of its positive applications might be in regards to child-rearing."

Everything about a woman's personality and biology is for child-rearing. The problem is this society wants women to forgo that and become men...and they can't do that very well.

rycamor said...

Taterearl... so true, and this does explain the solipsism. Reminds me of an elderly spinster in our countryish neighborhood. Was talking with her in our yard, and my son mentioned something about squirrels and I had to open my big mouth and mention that Rycamor Jr. had in fact tasted squirrel on a stick, because the neighbor boys shot one with a .22 and roasted it up.

Of course I had no way of knowing that she had a soft spot for squirrels. To her, of course, the whole world was supposed to automatically conform to her sensibilities for squirrels. Funny thing: she has no problem killing rabbits who mess with her garden, but DARE you touch a squirrel...

She nursed her grudge for two days and then took it out on the boys' mother. Of course, by then the story had transmogrified in her head to "Your sons shot my mama squirrel, and her babies were left all alone!". No kidding. This had happened two years ago, in a neighborhood full of squirrels (due in no small part to her feeding them), but no--they had specifically shot her Mama squirrel! And she had been obsessed with that for two whole days. Obviously, because she doesn't have children of her own to worry about.

Scott said...

There's a vocab word for what stickwick is explaining that I've been trying to remember for a while. Vox used it on one of his other posts but I can't for the life of me remember it. Like a faux interest in an activity but not taking any real means of learning anything about it.

LP 999/Eliza said...

Vox is once again correct, great post, great reminders for myself and my own truth-lie detector.

The queen bee persona is grating my nerves. We have a few around the area (not-online). I attempt to avoid them, never return their calls and disregard what they say. B/c everything they seem to say is like...not in reality or not logical or an outright LIE.

Given, I have no training in mental health but I often wonder if there are more mentally ill women and men roaming about these days. These lies we tell (including my white lies to my family to protect my dad ARE STILL LIES, God asked us to NOT LIE), will be found out, the truth always wins, the truth always rises...

Over the weekend, minus the henhouse horror show of examples, I saw a full spectrum of troubled people (women) parade around like they of importance, authority or a logical/dependable outlet.

Women lie and I often attribute it to our or their solipsism, emotionalism and irrational or poor reasoning capabilities.

This weekend, I learned that some women do not operate in reality. Whereas I have seen it with 99% certainty that men operate in reality.

Anonymous said...

This is an hilarious article about the dream and reality of a female only company:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html

Anonymous said...

@ Scott,

Do you mean dilettante?

frenchy

R. Bradley Andrews said...

Taterearl,

Both men and women get into Heaven the same way: Through the blood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Relative "goodness" doesn't matter.

I suppose we could debate if one outlook is more likely to receive that gift, but that is a different topic.

Desiderius said...

There is a distinction between lying (misrepresenting truth) and bullshit (denying the existence/importance of truth).

See Harry Frankfurt's On Bullshit.

jm said...

So, one should listen to women's words in order to catch their lies, without placing credence in them?

Scott said...

That's the word I was looking for. Thanks.

Anacaona said...

I'm the one that can't flirt from the above comment at HUS. I really can't flirt. I wish I could is just not there I actually admire women that can flirt, the same way I admire women taller than me, is just something I lack, YMMV.

Anonymous Beta said...

So the idea is to flip the script and "lie" to women constantly in the same subtle way, in order to sub communicate that you are a high value man? That seems to me a big part of the "faking it until you make it" aspect of game.

MaMu1977 said...

@LP999

There are more of all kinds of people around today. The mentally ill are more visible due to lack of moral and legal restraint.

Back on topic-It's story time!

In a decade of military service, I worked with a grand total of two observant Jews. One of them was like Kyle from South Park-doing everything in his power to avoid being a stereotype. He lifted weights, ran marathons, drank like a fish, underplayed his intelligence, etc. The other guy was Woody Allen with a fitter frame and a handsomer face. Both guys got laid with essentially the same amount of women (22 in one year for the buff Jew, 40 in two years with the Woody Allen clone.)

There was one major difference between their pulling styles. Buff Jew, despite the fact that he lived in a place where the girls were turned on by big, strong, dumb guys, would wine and dine strippers and club chicks. Shots for her and her friends, getting the nice hotel room out of town, the whole nine yards. "Woody", OTOH, would hit on girls after beating them at pub games (pool, f├╝ssball, darts...) Between hotel costs, petrol costs and alcohol, Buff Jew spent about €1000 per notch. His notches were no lower than a hard 7, but €1000 is still €1000. "Woody" spent less than €20 a notch, sometimes spending all of his money on pool tables or dart games, with most of his girls being between a natural 6 and a made-up 8. Buff Jew's girls knew his entire life story, "Woody's" girls knew him as "that little guy who knows all the angles". Buff Jew (this is the most important part) thought that the easiest way to get laid was to flash the cash (money/status game). "Woody", in his own words, knew that the easiest way to get laid was to show her up, to bring her to his level (then to establish superiority by beating her at her own game.)

€20,000+ in total to overwhelm girls, or >€1000 to make girls feel that, "He isn't much of anything, but if I can't beat him then he must be better than me..."

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.