Gonna side with @SilverRose on this one...most guys would way prefer a woman desperately hot and horny for him than one he feels like he has to conquer. Sorry to confirm, but you definitely are 90th percentile (prob more than that) in desire for conquerage and actual (not just kayfabe) domination. Though I don't know why it should be surprising that you are 99th percentile on basically any trait. 😉
The evopsych thing. Walt didn't get it but I *was* assuming that when there's an evopsych reason for some behavior that that 'true' motive exists subconsciously. Real 'aha' moment. Kinda white-pilling to realize that say women literally do put on makeup 'for themselves'.
Her worst take:
That the reason women like true crime is that they're more into psychology. LOL!
no I got it but IMO the subconscious thing IS there in a more tautological sense
there's this entire ambient semiotic ecosystem where every butterfly effect actions influences everyone else's behavior in a ton of ways, and so a woman can do something that legibly registers only as for herself when the functional embodied telos is all about getting the cock
and if anything the mystery in her own cognition is the entire appeal of women and what lets them be baby and not seem like a calculating hooker all the time
So you model is that inside every woman there is a conniving hooker directing her behavior.
Rose's model is that the conniving is wholly outside the woman. Evolution imbued her with a bunch of conflicting drives that put together sort of approximate an inner hooker while she's just earnestly doing what she likes.
The latter model has a lot going for it. For example a date once got insecure when I was looking at her hand because her nails were done without some fancy coat or whatever. Obviously no guy would ever notice or care, but she had no inner hooker to tell her that.
Also it both models can explain the butterfly effect you mention.
Gonna side with @SilverRose on this one...most guys would way prefer a woman desperately hot and horny for him than one he feels like he has to conquer. Sorry to confirm, but you definitely are 90th percentile (prob more than that) in desire for conquerage and actual (not just kayfabe) domination. Though I don't know why it should be surprising that you are 99th percentile on basically any trait. 😉
I am now a misandrist
Current society is closer to androgyny than masculinity/femininity from a historical perspective:
- Nihilism/nonchalance culture is masculine.
- Pivot from wealth-based status markers to social-based status markers is feminine.
- Height/physique is in (masculine) but so is face (feminine).
- Credentialization culture is feminine.
- Competitive job admissions/dating is masculine.
- Political polarization is masculine.
Though from a relative standpoint (e.g. compared to the 70s) culture is definitely more feminine than it used to be.
Your stereotypes regarding women aren’t specific enough. As I was saying, men are bad at reading the following situations…
Rose's best take this episode:
The evopsych thing. Walt didn't get it but I *was* assuming that when there's an evopsych reason for some behavior that that 'true' motive exists subconsciously. Real 'aha' moment. Kinda white-pilling to realize that say women literally do put on makeup 'for themselves'.
Her worst take:
That the reason women like true crime is that they're more into psychology. LOL!
no I got it but IMO the subconscious thing IS there in a more tautological sense
there's this entire ambient semiotic ecosystem where every butterfly effect actions influences everyone else's behavior in a ton of ways, and so a woman can do something that legibly registers only as for herself when the functional embodied telos is all about getting the cock
and if anything the mystery in her own cognition is the entire appeal of women and what lets them be baby and not seem like a calculating hooker all the time
So you model is that inside every woman there is a conniving hooker directing her behavior.
Rose's model is that the conniving is wholly outside the woman. Evolution imbued her with a bunch of conflicting drives that put together sort of approximate an inner hooker while she's just earnestly doing what she likes.
The latter model has a lot going for it. For example a date once got insecure when I was looking at her hand because her nails were done without some fancy coat or whatever. Obviously no guy would ever notice or care, but she had no inner hooker to tell her that.
Also it both models can explain the butterfly effect you mention.
it's not an inner hooker so much as a sort of psychic phantom limb syndrome imo
For someone who’s allegedly smart, she seems to have a really hard time understanding the concept of a distribution.
How so?