User talk:Dr. Carson

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Dr. Carson!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

JorisEnter (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Why doesn't game work?[edit]

Let's say Danny is a socially inept (and androgynous) loser. You think that Danny should try to hook up 1000 times. I think that Danny's time would be far better spent conversing with friends 1000 times. Why? Learning how to be social (interesting and mature) is far more efficient. It's not that game doesn't work -- it's that it (1) works very badly, very slowly, and requires very large numbers to get results, and (2) lead to toxic attitudes that treat mates as mere sexual objects or psychological weaklings; said attitudes are extremely unlikely to lead to sustained relationship or even good sex.

Admittedly I'm basing this only on my personal experience. I couldn't find any scientific analyses of "game", however -- so this is the best I've got. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 14:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What about the guys who are constantly told by their close friends, "You have such a nice personality and you're good-looking and have a good job; you should have a girlfriend!" Yet when they get around attractive girls (or in social situations in general that are unfamiliar to them, such as being at a party), they don't know what to say. Once someone gets to know him, they find out that he's a good guy; but because he's so shy around new people, they don't get to know him. There are a lot of guys like that. Unfortunately, dating is tougher for a shy guy than for a shy girl, because guys are expected to do the approaching and be confident (girls will sometimes signal their interest in some way, but the guy is expected to know how to seize the opportunity). Even guys who are able to capitalize on situations where the girl has already signalled interest are still dealing with a smaller pool of potential sex (or sexual relationship) partners than what would be available if they were willing and able to do cold approaches.
He could, through trial and error (i.e. through having a lot of awkward learning experiences), maybe figure out how to make new friends. Or he could just learn game, and benefit from the lessons others have learnt the hard way. Why reinvent the wheel? Some guys just aren't that good at picking up principles of social interaction on their own, and need someone to explictly tell them.
Game also teaches guys that doing stuff that theoretically SHOULD make a girl be more attracted, will sometimes have the opposite effect, and that sometimes doing stuff that theoretically should push girls away will actually attract them. For example, being mysterious and hard to get will sometimes attract girls, while showering girls with gifts (such as free drinks at the bar) and attention right away will sometimes kill any attraction before it can get started. (I'm talking about attractive, young women here, not women who are less attractive and/or getting older and are at a point where they're more willing to make approaches and look for a guy with a good job who's interested in settling down fairly soon. Those women will probably tolerate more needy behavior from men than other women would, because now they are at a point of not having a lot of romantic options.)
Guys whose game is so bad that their dating options are severely limited are also at greater risk of developing an unhealthy obsession (i.e. oneitis) with a girl they get a crush on. This can lead to either stalking that girl and not taking no for an answer; or, if she's the abusive type, accepting all kinds of bad behavior and unreasonable demands from her in exchange for being allowed to continue having a relationship with her. There are guys who accept their girlfriend's cheating on them, dumping them, etc. and always take her back whenever she wants to come back, and buy her whatever stuff she wants, because they have no other romantic options. Dr. Carson (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Start at the beginning of what you wrote. "Once someone gets to know him, they find out that he's a good guy; but because he's so shy around new people, they don't get to know him." Learning anti-awkward behavior for all new people trumps learning specific anti-awkward behavior for people he wants to bang. Not only is it more important for his life in general (since the vast majority of people aren't romantic/sexual partners), but the vast majority of situations in a relationship are neither romantic nor sexual (and so learning to deal with them will improve his chances of getting sex/romance). αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Aren't heterosexual romantic relationships (especially involving younger women) a bit different than other kinds of relationships? To create attraction, the man has to be dominant and decisive, even if he would ordinarily tend to be a follower in other parts of life. He will be the one expected to ask her out, and therefore will have to be the one suggesting the venue, for example. He's also usually going to be the one taking the initiative to escalate physical intimacy. It can take a different set of social skills than what some guys are used to. (I've seen a few exceptions, where girls would be the ones taking the lead, but there's usually something wrong with those girls that makes them have to resort to being with the kinds of non-dominant, indecisive guys that other girls don't want.)
In the workplace, or when hanging out with friends, a guy can defer to the ideas of the leader of the group. Young women on the other hand will tend to expect their boyfriend or husband to show leadership. That's why it's sometimes so hard for guys to get out of the friendzone. They may have the social skills needed to play the role of platonic companion, but not those needed to kindle a romantic spark. A lot of "friendly" behaviors that will make a girl want to keep a guy around because he's useful (e.g. being willing to help move her furniture, without expecting anything in return) will actually work against making her feel sexually attracted to him. He thinks he might have a chance to eventually get in her pants by showing her what a nice guy he is, but it doesn't actually work that way, and therefore PUAs will discourage guys from trying that strategy.
I'm not sure I agree either that most situations in a relationship aren't romantic/sexual. Between any man and woman who are attracted to each other, there's going to be an undercurrent of sexuality present in their interactions, even if they're not banging each other. Stuff that he does outside the bedroom will affect her level of sexual attraction for him. For example, does he stand up for himself if she mistreats him? If not, she's going to lose some attraction for him. Dr. Carson (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

WTF is even "game denialism"[edit]

Find out here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I replied to you[edit]

Here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

So[edit]

I guess this whole reply was written in vain, then? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)