On Chick logic
Entropi
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....
>>>
Source: http://www.egroups.com/message/1HouseholdDiscipline/4294
E.
--
"If I'm gonna get my balls blown off for a word,
my word is POOOOOOON-TANG." -- Animal Mother
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Book Guy
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.]
entr...@my-deja.com (Entropi) wrote in
<8urgie$uvi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
--
Book Guy
book_guy at yahoo dot com
"To subdue the enemy without fighting is the highest skill." Sun
Tzu
I Teach Hypnosis
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.
Book Guy
comment below about your paranoia, Ray:
iteachh...@aol.com (I Teach Hypnosis) wrote in
<20001114124650...@ng-fm1.aol.com>:
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.
Jack
I guess I need to go back and find the post where "Ray" clearly and
unequivocally states that psychic phenomena and/or hypnosis is bunk.
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)
http://www.pickupguide.com - Maniac High
http://www.seduction.com - Ross Jeffries
http://www.fastseduction.com - Formhandle
http://members.home.net/odious - Odious
-----------
Available for Advisement, Consultation, and Suggestions
=+=
(To reply to me directly, reverse "oohay")
Alan Palmer
>
> 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....
> >>>
> Source: http://www.egroups.com/message/1HouseholdDiscipline/4294
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.
The_Swish
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$uvi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Entropi <entr...@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....
> >>>
> Source: http://www.egroups.com/message/1HouseholdDiscipline/4294
>
> E.
>
> --
> "If I'm gonna get my balls blown off for a word,
> my word is POOOOOOON-TANG." -- Animal Mother
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
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!!!!!!!!!
zor...@my-deja.com
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.
The_Swish
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!!!!!!!!!
Bozo
> > 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?
B.
Alan Palmer
Bozo <bozon...@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 :-)
Bozo
> > 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?
B.