The seduction community frequently simplifies the concepts taught by many of its members into one- or two-word slang terms. There's a lot of this slang floating around in books and Internet forums; the
Fast Seduction site lists a dictionary of hundreds of such terms. Since most of the discussion on the forums frequently refers to the same concepts, it's helpful to have a sort of dictionary to reduce the number of words in posts.
However, there's a funny thing about slang: it becomes so commonplace that it loses its meaning and, for lack of a better word, intensity. For example, the word "kino" is thrown around the forums as if it's just another step in a process. But when you look at how people are acutally using the term, we find that "kino" can mean anything from holding hands to foreplay. Certainly, the term fails to accurately convey the emotion behind the latter. One could argue that it fails to convey even the former.
So it is with another term, "social proof." Social proof is basically a synonym for being "popular;" if a lot of other people like me, you will probably like me too. It's a concept that I believe is a poor judge of character, because there are a lot of jerks who make more and more friends simply because they already have a lot of friends. Regardless of my opinion, however, the concept does exist, and I encountered a powerful demonstration on Friday, June 16.
Continue reading "Social Proof"
More than once I've described job recruiting as the "Black Box Process"; you input something into the box, shake it, and an inexplicable result falls out. You don't really know the process or reasoning behind that output, it just is. Oftentimes you have incomplete information, so you act as you see fit... There are some basic rules of behaviour that need to be observed, but so many factors are completely arbitrary. You win some, you lose some, but in the end, it's not personal. You know what? I've decided the same goes for dating.
Earlier today, one of CNN's anchors posted an interesting article on one of the network's 
Here's a warning: this is one of those blog-defining posts. 13 months ago, I posted that I had major problems with the state of dating today. I was even able to describe some of them to you: the expectation of society that men do all the work, and women who took advantage of that fact regardless of the cost. I pointed out some likely culprits: the seduction community, David DeAngelo, and the women's rights movement. Until now, however, I wasn't able to make a concrete suggestion as to why things are the way they are. I was not and still am not convinced that vague, uncontrollable forces such as "evolution" and "nature" are entirely at fault for this state of affairs.
Driving to work this morning I listened to an interesting conversation on the radio regarding whether buying a gym membership is a step towards meeting a significant other. One DJ argued that people who go to the gym are, for obvious reasons, more fit and attractive than those who don't go to the gym. Likewise, he said, those who work out are more likely to have the mental attributes that are attractive in partners - namely, a drive to succeed that shows by sticking to a fitness program.
Earlier today, I came across an article discussing the medical "problem" of lack of libido. I mentioned before that I suffered from this issue, but didn't label it a "problem" because it didn't (and still does not) bother me enough to seek attention for it.
After returning to Philly for the holidays yesterday, I went to Penn State's Abington campus to settle some final business with a job I had held there for more than three years. When I was about to leave, I went to bathroom, and noticed a large poster hung above one of the urinals. Since the event had passed and the date stamp was expired, I removed the advertisement from the wall to remind me to write about something.
While Eek's thoughts on the correlation between beauty and intelligence are worth investigating, I searched for those studies and found something yet more interesting. The findings in question are the 
When I travel to Philly, or when I return from there back to my home in State College, there are two possible routes to take. One leads east and then south: I-99 - I-80 - I-476. The other leads south and then east: US 322 - I-76. The first is about twenty miles longer than the second, but most of the time turns out faster because route 322 is under the 
I've heard it said that when somebody's really in love, everyone else seems just plain unattractive in comparison to the object of his or her affection. Most of the time, though, the people pushing this view are the screenwriters and authors who want to add a bit of drama to their creative works. Thus, I've wondered whether there is any truth to this statement.
Recently, I was alerted to an interesting phenomenon in the world of dating: how interest in the opposite sex seems to wax and wane. No, "on-again, off-again" in this case doesn't refer to certain couples who never seem to be able to separate. Instead, I'm talking about how interest in all people of the opposite sex in general seems to lower at certain times, and how almost everyone seems attractive at other times.
I have been thinking about this for a long time. Where do you draw the line? And when does it become appropriate for the line to shift? I was trying to think of one issue where this is most appropriate and there isn't one specific one that crystallizes the feel of it all. In the course of dating and courtship there are lines that we all draw. "I won't date someone taller than me." "I won't date someone who's overweight." I won't date someone who smokes." "I won't date someone who doesn't have a great rack." These are all lines that we have drawn in our heads that stop of from finding people. Is that a bad thing?
Comments