Quoting from a mailing list; written by a woman. As the text below shows, chick logic is totally self-referential, and very consistent within its own framework. Particularly interesting are the first and last few sentences.
<<< actually, yes,women use circular logic to some extent. we start with our response to the situation and end with our response to the situation. if that is circular than so be it. i don't know every woman on the planet but of those i do know they do not apply linear logic to human behavior...just because A occurs B does not necessarily follow. the men in my experience become frustrated when people don't behave along the A to B to C path. the way i see it (and the women i have talked with in recent days see it) is that there is no set logic that can be attached to human behavior. there simply is no logic to it. how i react to a situation has nothing to do with how someone else with a different set of enviromental, cultural, economic or religious influences will react. logic by definition is a line of reasoning which can be applied to a particular set of circumstances with little to no variation. 1+ 1 = 2 whether i want it to or not. no matter how hard any of us try we cannot ascribe rational or logical thought to the act of being human. we are creatures of need and emotion. what is "logical" about wanting to have more children after the first one has shown you what sleepless nights, deep terror, heavy duty responsiblity and baby diarrhea are all about? what is logical about falling in love with someone who wants to be in control of your behavior? what is logical about that moment of immediate and stunning attraction to someone you just met? what is logical about the sudden and unrelenting craving for chocolate at 3 in the morning that MUST be satisfied? none of that is logical. yet all of us engage in those kinds of behaviors that cannot be explained using linear logic. there are perhaps reasons for what we do...there usually are. but logical they just aren't and the logic women use is the logic that says one cannot predict what people are going to do and to expect the unexpected and react as necessary to the situation without worrying about what the "logical" thing to do is....
She's just done a wonderful job of demonstrating EXACTLY what the motivations of women are, and how someone with a rational, linear mind, can easily extrapolate from this list of motivations a VERY LOGICAL framework. If she were willing, she could, as well, admit to logicality, and even analyze her own behavior logically. It's just that she's devoted to the vocabularly of feeling.
To me, it isn't "chick" to be over-emotional, non-linear, or irrational in any of the ways we usually mean when we dismissively say, "chick logic." To me, it's indulgent. Women who don't get every damn thing they want from daddy, who have to make life-or-death decisions, whose actions have consequences (think a 14-ear-old street prostitute in Pat Pong) aren't saddled with useless chick logic. They're problem-solvers. If associativity applies, they use it; if linearity appies, they use it. I absolutely refuse to admit that females are incapable of problem-solving. It's simply that in North America, we've let them get away with not having to solve problems. We've let them indulge in chick logic.
Which isn't to say we can't understand it and use its existence to our advantage ... heheh
[Troll comment: And no, RAY, I don't agree with you that if we all just started telling women to stop indulging themselves that we could have a "deliberate" paradigm shift. People don't act according to deliberately chosen diametrically opposed groups. No matter how many people from ASF start to tread heavy on chick logic, the women of North America still aren't going to call each other up one dark night and agree to change their collective behavior just to one-up the men in the never-ending hate-filled battle between the sexes. The closer I look at your mistakes, Ray, the more I see a need to collect the universe into groups, single-minded non-human groups all with collective communicating intelligences and all with agendas. That's called paranoia, Ray. Knowing about the indulgences of North American females, isn't the same as being able to create a counter- culture revolution via the internet, or even as WANTING to create that revolution. Men are indulged in North America too.]
entrop...@my-deja.com (Entropi) wrote in <8urgie$uv...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>Quoting from a mailing list; written by a woman. As the text >below shows, chick logic is totally self-referential, and >very consistent within its own framework. Particularly >interesting are the first and last few sentences.
><<< >actually, yes,women use circular logic to some extent. > we start with our response to the situation and end >with our response to the situation. if that is >circular than so be it. i don't know every woman on >the planet but of those i do know they do not apply >linear logic to human behavior...just because A occurs >B does not necessarily follow. the men in my >experience become frustrated when people don't behave >along the A to B to C path. the way i see it (and the >women i have talked with in recent days see it) is >that there is no set logic that can be attached to >human behavior. there simply is no logic to it. how >i react to a situation has nothing to do with how >someone else with a different set of enviromental, >cultural, economic or religious influences will react. > logic by definition is a line of reasoning which can >be applied to a particular set of circumstances with >little to no variation. 1+ 1 = 2 whether i want it to >or not. no matter how hard any of us try we cannot >ascribe rational or logical thought to the act of >being human. we are creatures of need and emotion. >what is "logical" about wanting to have more children >after the first one has shown you what sleepless >nights, deep terror, heavy duty responsiblity and baby >diarrhea are all about? what is logical about falling >in love with someone who wants to be in control of >your behavior? what is logical about that moment of >immediate and stunning attraction to someone you just >met? what is logical about the sudden and unrelenting >craving for chocolate at 3 in the morning that MUST be >satisfied? none of that is logical. yet all of us >engage in those kinds of behaviors that cannot be >explained using linear logic. there are perhaps >reasons for what we do...there usually are. but >logical they just aren't and the logic women use is >the logic that says one cannot predict what people are >going to do and to expect the unexpected and react as >necessary to the situation without worrying about what >the "logical" thing to do is....
>She's just done a wonderful job of demonstrating EXACTLY what >the motivations of women are, and how someone with a rational, >linear mind, can easily extrapolate from this list of >motivations a VERY LOGICAL framework. If she were willing, she >could, as well, admit to logicality, and even analyze her own >behavior logically. It's just that she's devoted to the >vocabularly of feeling.
>To me, it isn't "chick" to be over-emotional, non-linear, or >irrational in any of the ways we usually mean when we >dismissively say, "chick logic." To me, it's indulgent. Women >who don't get every damn thing they want from daddy, who have to >make life-or-death decisions, whose actions have consequences >(think a 14-ear-old street prostitute in Pat Pong) aren't >saddled with useless chick logic. They're problem-solvers. If >associativity applies, they use it; if linearity appies, they >use it. I absolutely refuse to admit that females are incapable >of problem-solving. It's simply that in North America, we've let >them get away with not having to solve problems. We've let them >indulge in chick logic.
>Which isn't to say we can't understand it and use its existence >to our advantage ... heheh
>[Troll comment: And no, RAY, I don't agree with you that if we >all just started telling women to stop indulging themselves that >we could have a "deliberate" paradigm shift.
Your comments here are not congruent. If we tell women how we get over on them, they will continue to indulge themselves by changing their behavior.
>People don't act >according to deliberately chosen diametrically opposed groups. >No matter how many people from ASF start to tread heavy on chick >logic, the women of North America still aren't going to call >each other up one dark night and agree to change their >collective behavior just to one-up the men in the never-ending >hate-filled battle between the sexes.
Guess again.
>The closer I look at your >mistakes, Ray, the more I see a need to collect the universe >into groups, single-minded non-human groups all with collective >communicating intelligences and all with agendas.
Excuse me? Your presupposition is inaccurate. Take the case of the guy who made the "axe murderer" joke. I said it was PERFECT and got reamed; five days later he gives a lay report. Your refusal to acknowledge that in no way changes the reality.
>That's called >paranoia, Ray. Knowing about the indulgences of North American >females, isn't the same as being able to create a counter- >culture revolution via the internet, or even as WANTING to >create that revolution. Men are indulged in North America too.]
But the revolution is underway, with or without us. In 1979, a man who said being a jerk would get him laid would have been laughed off this group if it existed. Were you even BORN in 1979? Back then the "nice guy" was the rage. Men had to be sensitive, and women were CONSCIOUSLY REWARDING that behavior. Until too many men became spineless wimps, creating a demand for jerks.
>>She's just done a wonderful job of demonstrating EXACTLY >>what the motivations of women are, and how someone with a >>rational, linear mind, can easily extrapolate from this list >>of motivations a VERY LOGICAL framework. If she were >>willing, she could, as well, admit to logicality, and even >>analyze her own behavior logically. It's just that she's >>devoted to the vocabularly of feeling.
>>To me, it isn't "chick" to be over-emotional, non-linear, or >>irrational in any of the ways we usually mean when we >>dismissively say, "chick logic." To me, it's indulgent. >>Women who don't get every damn thing they want from daddy, >>who have to make life-or-death decisions, whose actions have >>consequences (think a 14-ear-old street prostitute in Pat >>Pong) aren't saddled with useless chick logic. They're >>problem-solvers. If associativity applies, they use it; if >>linearity appies, they use it. I absolutely refuse to admit >>that females are incapable of problem-solving. It's simply >>that in North America, we've let them get away with not >>having to solve problems. We've let them indulge in chick >>logic.
>>Which isn't to say we can't understand it and use its >>existence to our advantage ... heheh
>>[Troll comment: And no, RAY, I don't agree with you that if >>we all just started telling women to stop indulging >>themselves that we could have a "deliberate" paradigm shift.
>Your comments here are not congruent. If we tell women how >we get over on them, they will continue to indulge themselves >by changing their behavior.
>>People don't act >>according to deliberately chosen diametrically opposed >>groups. No matter how many people from ASF start to tread >>heavy on chick logic, the women of North America still >>aren't going to call each other up one dark night and agree >>to change their collective behavior just to one-up the men >>in the never-ending hate-filled battle between the sexes.
>Guess again.
>>The closer I look at your >>mistakes, Ray, the more I see a need to collect the universe >>into groups, single-minded non-human groups all with >>collective communicating intelligences and all with agendas.
>Excuse me? Your presupposition is inaccurate. Take the case >of the guy who made the "axe murderer" joke. I said it was >PERFECT and got reamed; five days later he gives a lay >report. Your refusal to acknowledge that in no way changes >the reality.
My "refusal to acknowledge"? I didn't refuse. Nobody asked me to acknowledge. Nobody even BROUGHT THAT UP at all, until you did. You brought a totally unrelated subect into this thread, and also assumed that I was against you and would find fault with you, and introduced that subject and that supposed fault-finding as though it would prove your point that people were out to get you. I do acknowledge that you said exactly that, and that the lay report does exist. Your verbal tactic, however - unrelated non-negative subject somehow implies total disagreement and negativity in the minds of strangers - is by definition a characteristic of paranoia.
Hmm, let's see what I wrote next ...
>>That's called >>paranoia, Ray.
Gee, what a surprise.
>>Knowing about the indulgences of North >>American females, isn't the same as being able to create a >>counter- culture revolution via the internet, or even as >>WANTING to create that revolution. Men are indulged in North >>America too.]
>But the revolution is underway, with or without us. In 1979, >a man who said being a jerk would get him laid would have >been laughed off this group if it existed. Were you even >BORN in 1979? Back then the "nice guy" was the rage. Men had >to be sensitive, and women were CONSCIOUSLY REWARDING that >behavior. Until too many men became spineless wimps, creating >a demand for jerks.
Being a jerk in 1979 got guys laid. There are plenty of children of jerks who are now 21 years old. Being a "sensitive new age guy" in 1979 got some guys laid. Using seductive language, with gestures toward a woman's good feelings and an ability to associate those feelings with the seducer, got lots of guys laid. Were they jerks or "nice guys"?
End of discussion. No more from me.
--
Book Guy book_guy at yahoo dot com "To subdue the enemy without fighting is the highest skill." Sun Tzu
> >She's just done a wonderful job of demonstrating EXACTLY what > >the motivations of women are, and how someone with a rational, > >linear mind, can easily extrapolate from this list of > >motivations a VERY LOGICAL framework. If she were willing, she > >could, as well, admit to logicality, and even analyze her own > >behavior logically. It's just that she's devoted to the > >vocabularly of feeling.
> >To me, it isn't "chick" to be over-emotional, non-linear, or > >irrational in any of the ways we usually mean when we > >dismissively say, "chick logic." To me, it's indulgent. Women > >who don't get every damn thing they want from daddy, who have to > >make life-or-death decisions, whose actions have consequences > >(think a 14-ear-old street prostitute in Pat Pong) aren't > >saddled with useless chick logic. They're problem-solvers. If > >associativity applies, they use it; if linearity appies, they > >use it. I absolutely refuse to admit that females are incapable > >of problem-solving. It's simply that in North America, we've let > >them get away with not having to solve problems. We've let them > >indulge in chick logic.
> >Which isn't to say we can't understand it and use its existence > >to our advantage ... heheh
> >[Troll comment: And no, RAY, I don't agree with you that if we > >all just started telling women to stop indulging themselves that > >we could have a "deliberate" paradigm shift.
> Your comments here are not congruent. If we tell women how we get > over on them, they will continue to indulge themselves by changing > their behavior.
> >People don't act > >according to deliberately chosen diametrically opposed groups. > >No matter how many people from ASF start to tread heavy on chick > >logic, the women of North America still aren't going to call > >each other up one dark night and agree to change their > >collective behavior just to one-up the men in the never-ending > >hate-filled battle between the sexes.
> Guess again.
> >The closer I look at your > >mistakes, Ray, the more I see a need to collect the universe > >into groups, single-minded non-human groups all with collective > >communicating intelligences and all with agendas.
> Excuse me? Your presupposition is inaccurate. Take the case of the > guy who made the "axe murderer" joke. I said it was PERFECT and got > reamed; five days later he gives a lay report. Your refusal to > acknowledge that in no way changes the reality.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day...
> >That's called > >paranoia, Ray. Knowing about the indulgences of North American > >females, isn't the same as being able to create a counter- > >culture revolution via the internet, or even as WANTING to > >create that revolution. Men are indulged in North America too.]
> But the revolution is underway, with or without us. In 1979, a man > who said being a jerk would get him laid would have been laughed off > this group if it existed. Were you even BORN in 1979? Back then > the "nice guy" was the rage. Men had to be sensitive, and women > were CONSCIOUSLY REWARDING that behavior. Until too many men became > spineless wimps, creating a demand for jerks.
--
John C. Ryan, Jr., M.Ed.
<----------<< =+= >>---------->
Sources for Basic Information (IOW, Do your own homework)
> Quoting from a mailing list; written by a woman. As the text below > shows, chick logic is totally self-referential, and very consistent > within its own framework. Particularly interesting are the first and > last few sentences.
Thanks for posting this. A few years ago, I would have regarded this kind of thinking as bizarre, almost a sign of mental illness (LOL). Now I understand it better.
> <<< > actually, yes,women use circular logic to some extent. > we start with our response to the situation and end > with our response to the situation. if that is > circular than so be it. i don't know every woman on > the planet but of those i do know they do not apply > linear logic to human behavior...just because A occurs > B does not necessarily follow. the men in my > experience become frustrated when people don't behave > along the A to B to C path.
This is key. I remember Nightlight made a similar point a while back. By "circular logic" I think she means emotional processing. My take: she has a strong preference for relating to the world via feeling rather than thinking. She arrives at decisions via feelings (emotional processing in her brain), so asking her to justify her decision in thinking (analytical) terms would seem absurd to her.
And the way she processes those feelings are largely below her level of awareness - in her unconscious. So she can't tell you *how* she arrived at that decision. It must feel to her as if "it just happens".
If pressed to explain a decision, she'll give an explanation that she feels good about, not one that models her actual decision-making process.
Ahh (ping!) so this is what happens during seduction. The PUA gets her into a state of emotional relating and keeps her there, via kino, trance words, etc.
The chick arrives at her decisions emotionally, with the PUA leading her past her decision points, but to her it feels spontaneous. She feels interest, then rapport, then attraction, then horniness. The PUA might have a definite plan in mind (a la Maniac), but to her it feels like "it just happens".
And from there, it's only a hop, step, and a jump to "it was meant to be".
If the PUA-to-be makes a move that breaks her emotional spontaneous state, like asking her to make a reasonable decision ("Hey, let's go to a hotel. What do you think?") then for this type of chick, the game's off. If he just takes her home, or does her there, while keeping her in state, he gets the !close ("it just happened").
...
> the way i see it (and the > women i have talked with in recent days see it) is > that there is no set logic that can be attached to > human behavior. there simply is no logic to it.
...
Oh dear. Robert Cialdini's work on influence, John Bowlby's work on attachment in human infants, psychotherapy, NLP, sales training, SS, PUAs ...
But I can understand how she might believe this ... if I assume that she makes her decisions emotionally, and her powers of analytical decision-making are weak.
...
> yet all of us > engage in those kinds of behaviors that cannot be > explained using linear logic. there are perhaps > reasons for what we do...there usually are. but > logical they just aren't and the logic women use is > the logic that says one cannot predict what people are > going to do and to expect the unexpected and react as > necessary to the situation without worrying about what > the "logical" thing to do is....
Well, I expect even she would be able to predict the behaviour of her closest friends, and of her own children. I would also expect her to agree with that. And I would further expect her not to see any contradiction in her position.
My take: logical thinking is the weakest part of her personality, just as emotional thinking is mine.
She's trying to do here what she's weakest at: think analytically about her own and others' behaviour. Just as, when I go into a bar sarging, I'm trying to do what I'm weakest at.
I find her analysis weak, but I'm good at analysis, and have been all my life. No doubt she'd find my sarging moves in bars weak, but she's good at emotional relating and has been all her life.
Hey Dude How's everything? Well I am new to this so please be paitent. I only have a few question/comments that maybe you could clear up for me.
In article <8urgie$uv...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Entropi <entrop...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Quoting from a mailing list; written by a woman. As the text below > shows, chick logic is totally self-referential, and very consistent > within its own framework. Particularly interesting are the first and > last few sentences.
> <<< > actually, yes,women use circular logic to some extent. > we start with our response to the situation and end > with our response to the situation. if that is > circular than so be it. i don't know every woman on > the planet but of those i do know they do not apply > linear logic to human behavior...just because A occurs > B does not necessarily follow.
Kinda reminds me of the saying "What goes around comes around" and "Look out for # one." the men in my
> experience become frustrated when people don't behave > along the A to B to C path. the way i see it (and the > women i have talked with in recent days see it) is > that there is no set logic that can be attached to > human behavior. there simply is no logic to it. how > i react to a situation has nothing to do with how > someone else with a different set of enviromental, > cultural, economic or religious influences will react.
Here is a good point that I think is worth remembering.All of us are human and we all have a somewhat different view of the world.(yes?)
> logic by definition is a line of reasoning which can > be applied to a particular set of circumstances with > little to no variation. 1+ 1 = 2 whether i want it to > or not. no matter how hard any of us try we cannot > ascribe rational or logical thought to the act of > being human. we are creatures of need and emotion. > what is "logical" about wanting to have more children > after the first one has shown you what sleepless > nights, deep terror, heavy duty responsiblity and baby > diarrhea are all about? what is logical about falling > in love with someone who wants to be in control of > your behavior? what is logical about that moment of > immediate and stunning attraction to someone you just > met? what is logical about the sudden and unrelenting > craving for chocolate at 3 in the morning that MUST be > satisfied? none of that is logical. yet all of us > engage in those kinds of behaviors that cannot be > explained using linear logic. there are perhaps > reasons for what we do...there usually are. but > logical they just aren't and the logic women use is > the logic that says one cannot predict what people are > going to do and to expect the unexpected and react as > necessary to the situation without worrying about what > the "logical" thing to do is....
Just thought I'd put my two cents in cause as I look at it we're all on this planet and we all have different beliefs as to what we experience. Just try to get two people that just saw a car crash to agree as to what they just saw. -- Change is good!!!! ******SWISH****** GO FOR IT!!!!!!!!!
What is funny is that female "following of the emotions" is sometimes better than male "logical reasoning". On average, women do better at stocks for example. If you try to use logic, you'll tend to simplify.
zor...@my-deja.com wrote: > What is funny is that female "following of the emotions" is sometimes > better than male "logical reasoning". On average, women do better at > stocks for example. If you try to use logic, you'll tend to simplify.
Funny you should mention that. It reminds me of a study someone did a few years back. They took a monkey, had it throw darts and actually made money on the stock market! I still think that we're all human and we experience things differently. Also the biggest difference as far as men and women, in general, as far as the way we process the experiences we have, is that women lead with their emotions as men lead with logic. -- Change is good!!!! ******SWISH****** GO FOR IT!!!!!!!!!
A very good analysis of a very confusing female POV of 'thinking'.
> > the way i see it (and the > > women i have talked with in recent days see it) is > > that there is no set logic that can be attached to > > human behavior. there simply is no logic to it. > Oh dear. Robert Cialdini's work on influence, John Bowlby's work on > attachment in human infants, psychotherapy, NLP, sales training, SS, > PUAs ...
I think that the most fundamental principle of Cialdini's work is that "people are lazy when it comes to thinking". That's why people use short-cuts such as "social proof", "authority" and "liking" (expecting other people to act in their best interests). They just don't want to use their brain!! Just plain *laziness*. Why take the trouble to find out whether a guy is interesting if you can conclude from his sexy date that he must be?
> My take: logical thinking is the weakest part of her personality, just > as emotional thinking is mine.
Not necessarily. I have come to the conclusion that women CAN think logically. Wow! What a new insight, huh? ;) They can analyze a complex math problem, easily too.
BUT, BUT they don't WANT think logically about their life, especially when feelings are involved. (For example, a friend of mine, she is a consultant and good at it too, but she "thinks" (feels) her work is all nonsense.)
You see, in your value system, thinking analytically is most important, and "thinking" emotionally (feeling) has a low priority.
In her value system, "thinking" emotionally (feeling) has the highest priority, thus, she must always stay true to her feelings. When it comes to making decisions, even important ones, thinking analytically is of little importance. So, she cannot even understand WHY you would even want to analyse her emotions because, as everyone knows, analysis is not important.
To summarise, she can think logically, but she doesn't want to.
Does that make sense to you? I mean, can you see what I am saying? Or is it just plain logical?
In article <8uve0f$9h...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Bozo <bozonocl...@my-deja.com> wrote: ...
>You see, in your value system, thinking analytically is most important, >and "thinking" emotionally (feeling) has a low priority.
Well, not when I'm writing my performance stuff :-)
> In her value system, "thinking" emotionally (feeling) has the highest > priority, thus, she must always stay true to her feelings. When it > comes to making decisions, even important ones, thinking analytically > is of little importance. So, she cannot even understand WHY you would > even want to analyse her emotions because, as everyone knows, analysis > is not important.
> To summarise, she can think logically, but she doesn't want to.
My take, and maybe we disagree here: she can think logically, but she doesn't want to, because she's weak at it; thinking emotionally feels "right" and "natural", because it's easy for her.
> Does that make sense to you? I mean, can you see what I am saying? > Or is it just plain logical?
Do I "see" what you're saying? No, but I hear you :-)
> > To summarise, she can think logically, but she doesn't want to.
> My take, and maybe we disagree here: she can think logically, but she > doesn't want to, because she's weak at it; thinking emotionally feels > "right" and "natural", because it's easy for her.
Yeah, that feels about right for me. I don't know *her* exactly, but I know it true for a lot of women. Can think, won't think -- of course everybody falls prey to that every now and then...
I still find it difficult to appeal to her emotions instead of explaining something in logical terms. For example, I know how to reframe logically, but how do you reframe something in emotional terms. Any ideas?
|
