Signaling value through possessing specific milestones, rather than through possessing the underlying qualities themselves

[jhonny9546]

Hey guys, Jhonny here.

I don't want to make a fancy post.
I want to talk about signaling value through possessing specific milestones, rather than through possessing the underlying qualities themselves.

I'll keep it short.

Many of us, never went around telling women our worth.
We just did things in our life, and once some of the results became obvious, once we've showed that we've reached some milestones, certain women seemed to wake up from their sleep, switch almost immediately, and show us their interest.

An example: think about two lawyers. Marco is genuinely excellent, 500 cases, great reputation, one of the best in his city, but he drives a Panda, doesn't use social media and is basically known only within his professional circle. Flavio is an average young lawyer with 15 cases, but he drives a G-Wagon, gives interviews and is constantly visible online. Who looks more prestigious to someone who doesn't know either of them? Obviously Flavio. That doesn't mean he's the better lawyer. It means people can only react to what they can actually perceive.

So, I've been keeping a little text file for a while where I write down things I've noticed women reacting to. I don't really care about what they say they're attracted to. I'm more interested in what they actually react to and do.*

Another example: Take a dancer. He's good at something he genuinely enjoys, so there's competence. Then he starts teaching, so now there's leadership. He becomes known in that scene, gets results and is surrounded by women, so there's social proof and preselection. Suddenly women who were already somewhat interested often become much more obvious about it. Same thing can happen with a trainer, entrepreneur, musician, lawyer, whatever. The occupation isn't necessarily the important part. The qualities he might have or not, too. Infact, He might not possess the qualities, but women rationalize the fact that if He is leading a group, so He must have value.
It's only in a man eyes that He could actually spot if another man has that value for real..women can't do that with their boyfriend, let alone if they can do with others...


There are women that seems interested in a guy for a long time but doesn't really do anything, until he hits some milestone, and suddenly she's much more proactive. It's almost as if the achievement was the only possible way to tell her that this guy had some value.

Contrary to popular belief, women cannot read if a man possess or not true value or qualities.
Women, instead, have to rationalize the fact they have to look out for elements in a man that tells he has value.
So if a man it's a lawyer, so he might be competent, rich, assertive, etce tc, but if a man it's a janitor, he might be unproductive, low class, poor, etc..
Nothing far from the thruth..


So people often say "women can spot in an instant if a man has value or insecurity" we want to rephrase that in "women will see if a man possess specific status elements that could help her rationalize the fact He posses some qualities she looking for in him".


Anyway, that's the pattern I've been seeing. I'm curious whether other longtime posters have noticed something similar. Not what women say they're attracted to, but what you actually did that seemed to make the female radar suddenly light up for that particular man.. that same man they had in their radar for a while, but never intended to make their interest obvious to him.

*So we might want to talk about "Which are those things, milestones a man reach in his life, that signal women and activate them to show their interest for him, and make them rationalize the fact that he has value"?

ps: as soon as I got in shape and got a woman, wonder what an engaged woman did to me? She asked me out, I've broken up with my GF, to be with her. Looked out that only was her FOMO to lose me, infact I ended the relationship since she was so insecure. She didn't want me, she didn't want to allow me to be with another woman.

 

[jhonny9546]

This also works the other way: I've simply seen too many young men become "presidents" of their sports or academic clubs or "CEO" of their own businesses, without possessing the qualities of emotional maturity, competence, experience.

They did it just to signal that they possessed them. It was obvious they didn't, yet they reaped the benefits of society (not just from women).

So the moral might be: if you want to be a lawyer, get good clothes, good cologne, a good car, buy copies of your country's law code and put them on the shelf of you rented office, and hire a good interior designer. And remember, be arrogant and assertive, show that you're committed and that your interview should therefore last less than five minutes. Ah, don't forget to stack many sheets of papers on your desk. You'll be a highly sought-after lawyer...

In short, getting into character, and acting, gets more results than actually bringing those qualities to the table.

So when we guys go look up the internet, searching for "main reasons for divorce", we may know the answer yet. Which is: people play the fake game, so even the most stupid woman will find out a man acting. But that takes kids, some trauma, and many years of therapy to allow the mind to see that.

Anyhow, the process cannot start, if a man is not able to signal those elements

 

[BaronOfHair]

@jhonny9546 "Many of us, never went around telling women our worth"

No, EVERYTHING one does signifies our "worth" or absence thereof, not just in the eyes of women but fellow men. Ex.

"Marco is genuinely excellent, 500 cases, great reputation, one of the best in his city, but he drives a Panda, doesn't use social media and is basically known only within his professional circle"

Marco's refusal to vigorously exploit social media as a means of advertising his services conveys a diasterous message about his own worth, the likes of which can be summed up as follows:

"I'm the sort of dolt who believes that getting top marks in school + Putting my nose to the grind stone while I'm on the clock, entitles me to prosperity. I'm NOT willing to put in extra effort to advance my career and public profile... I'm content to remain one of those fellas who's seen as a big shot among his colleagues and a schlep by everyone else"

Not surprisingly then, in real life men similar to

often become profitable and renown, while the typical Ivy League law grad dies in heavy debt and not having gotten far in life

 

[Mike32ct]

I think there are some guys who genuinely prefer to be the “Big fish in a small pond.”

I hate the PUA labels, but it might be an easier way to explain it. I think Marco would be more like the “Sigma male” as opposed to the “Alpha male” who is typically more status oriented.

Or Marco is a very high functioning “beta” who DGAF. It depends on how you look at it. But either way, it’s his choice.

 

[zekko]

So, I've been keeping a little text file for a while where I write down things I've noticed women reacting to. I don't really care about what they say they're attracted to. I'm more interested in what they actually react to and do.*

That sounds interesting, like something I might have done if I was younger. If you ever feel like sharing some of your observations, I'd be interested.

This all reminds me a little of Mystery's stories. He used to tell stories that would portray him with characteristics that would attract women. Like stories that showed him being calm under pressure, with a large social circle, with beautiful women, or as a good protector. Really, it all just sounded like him bragging to me.

 

[The Duke]

Sometimes its nice to fly under the radar and let people underestimate you. It filters out the gold diggers, and others that are attracted to shiny/flashy/popular/trendy things that don't matter.

I don't worry what people think of me. I do ME. They can hang out or move along. I'm not trying to signal to anyone what my value is or isn't. I only want to attract those who like me for me, not for what I have accomplished or what I can do for them.

I spent my childhood growing up in the shadows of my father and saw first hand the trash that tried to ride his coat tails and kiss azz so they could be seen with the man. He was a prominent figure because of his job, but it attracts all sorts of disgusting leaches that never accomplished much.

A cool head, emotional control, awareness, and confidence is enough to convince most women worth having that you know what you are doing. Those things are only developed over time.

 

[RoadKing_Rabbit]

Sometimes its nice to fly under the radar and let people underestimate you. It filters out the gold diggers, and others that are attracted to shiny/flashy/popular/trendy things that don't matter.

I don't worry what people think of me. I do ME. They can hang out or move along. I'm not trying to signal to anyone what my value is or isn't. I only want to attract those who like me for me, not for what I have accomplished or what I can do for them.

I spent my childhood growing up in the shadows of my father and saw first hand the trash that tried to ride his coat tails and kiss azz so they could be seen with the man. He was a prominent figure because of his job, but it attracts all sorts of disgusting leaches that never accomplished much.

A cool head, emotional control, awareness, and confidence is enough to convince most women worth having that you know what you are doing. Those things are only developed over time.

Love this! That's kind of how my 'game' 'plays itself' now. If I had to mention my demeanor or actions in the field that have become a part of the real me, that's how I'd describe it. Let them think as they will. My current LTR (Fiancé, popped the question recently) had the initial thought of "Oh. He's a 'biker.' He's got all this jewelry and eccentric grooming. He's probably a satanist etc...." Then she fell head over heels. Who is to say?

 

[jhonny9546]

Guys, your contribution here is very clear.
You're all so confident of yourselves and your beliefs.


If there's something to say in a given group discussion, You would not worry about staying within the Overton Window. You'll have your say, whether people like it or not.

That said, you're all telling me, especially @RoadKing_Rabbit @The Duke, that you're the Marco archetype.

Given this, we have proof that that archetipe may be confident within self, but He may not win in modern life/world.



As for this, however,

A cool head, emotional control, awareness, and confidence is enough to convince most women worth having that you know what you're doing. Those things are only developed over time.

I'm changing my mind recently because, with some of historians colleagues, that's not what makes you successful in life.
These people have been studying this for over 10 years, and we've come to understand that men who have had successful lives achieved their goals not through emotional control or having a cool head, but simply by using violence against others, make other people suffer, use other people at their own advantage

 

[zekko]

I'm changing my mind recently because, with some of historians colleagues, that's not what makes you successful in life.
These people have been studying this for over 10 years, and we've come to understand that men who have had successful lives achieved their goals not through emotional control or having a cool head, but simply by using violence against others, make other people suffer, use other people at their own advantage

Eh, there are different ways to be successful, and more importantly people have different ways of defining success for themselves.

 

[jhonny9546]

That sounds interesting, like something I might have done if I was younger. If you ever feel like sharing some of your observations, I'd be interested.

I have always noticed that there were two types of relationships, and I never understood in which of the two the woman was pretending, or was settling, because we know very well that for a woman, it is better to have any relationship rather than be single.


The first relationship has a normal dynamic, that is, the woman totally hates the fact that her man doesn't respond appropriately or that he does things like push and pull, hot and cold, teases her, etc, so she blatantly tells her man to stop and to opt for normal communication based on integrity, honesty, intimacy, openness, vulnerability.
She wants her man to do what he promises and what he says he will do.
She will do the same, she will be a very integral woman.
They both look happy and content.


The second relationship has a dynamic that here on sosuave we venerate, we encourage and that we think is the only and ideal one.
Push and pull, hot and cold, tease her, make her angry, use tactics etc.
The relationship is not based on openness and vulnerability, but, above all, the man always runs away when he feels that she is about to reach him. If he knows the real you then he will lose her attraction forever. Keep her at arm's length, make her miss you.
This relationship is what many define as toxic and although there are some quarrelsome moments, the relationship is going well. But they argue very often.


Now, in which of the two relationships a woman REALLY want to be in?
Which of those two kind of relationship women CRAVE for?



According to the theory of phasic attractiveness, ALL women are wired towards finding attraction for risk, danger, power, status, money, resources, then also things like humiliation, posses, jealously, etc, so you understand that all these things have more malignant than benign sides, and that women, by force of society and how it is built, since time immemorial, have been attracted to men which lead to the second type of relationship.

Does this mean that the first type of relationship isn't attractive to them or isn't what women really crave?

This is what I and a team of people who are studying attraction are asking ourselves and are trying to draw a line to find what is actually what they look for.

I don't want to advertise another forum/site, but only to interested people who are more interested in what we're talking about., so I'll make a spoiler

Spoiler: Phasic Attraction and what it consists of

Instead of "hearing women/men talking about it", we just focus on "what they really do"

I'm a contributor to this forum, and this post may well summarize what I take notes on

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ktydLowvEg8NxaG4Z/neuroscience-of-human-sexual-attraction-triggers-3

Basically, women experience 2 types of attraction, direct and indirect.

Direct, like to a nice boy, a nice face, a nice face, or if they see a penis, etc.

Indirect, called phasic attraction. (we will give examples below).



All people with a bit of brains know that they must have minimum requirements, which fall under "direct" attraction, while those that we study most are the "indirect" ones.



Examples.



A woman and a good guy.

She feels comfortable talking to him, as she doesn't feel a "risk" in the conversation, so she doesn't feel a phasic attraction to him, even if he could be a boy who could cause direct attraction.



For a woman to consider a guy for a relationship or sex, she must experience both attractions.



What we are studying more is to explain why women are attracted to unhealthy communication, because all men who use unhealthy communication are hot and cold, or very *******s, and therefore they remain attracted to that man, because they know that every time they have to talk to him, or ask him something, it is as if they have to take a risk.

They don't know how he might react.

(This is phasic attraction. Yet there is a lot of advice in the world of self improvement, here on the forum not to respond in emotional explosions, but to be assertive)



This, contrary to what women say they want healthy communication, is actually what makes them feel attracted to that man, since the risk that she feels, a phasic attraction, turns into direct attraction.

She doesn't know if by asking him something he might react badly or well.

This uncertainty of hers creates a trauma for which she will feel attraction without knowing it.



And it also confirms the fact that women do not experience any phasic attraction towards men who have healthy, assertive communication.



However, this cannot be true
for all women.

You see it often out there, I mean, many, many, many women and men in couples have communication based on the fact that they "can't say" some things, because "they don't know how their partner would react" which is the complete opposite of healthy communication where you can really say everything without problems.



There is simply something that is inexplicable about relationships and especially women and all of you here can attest to this.



When we say "toxic relationship" we are talking about how "healthy communication" made the couple "grow" and go through "difficult moments".




[/SPOILERS]

 

[zekko]

I have always noticed that there were two types of relationships, and I never understood in which of the two the woman was pretending, or was settling

I've always gotten the impression that most on this forum push the idea that the two relationships are:

1) Muscular, good looking alpha guy that she wants to have sex with.
2) Stable, provider type that she'll marry, but has zero attraction for.

I've never agreed with that, because I've never been in an LTR where the girl has not been sexually desirous. I've heard of them, never experienced it.

I've been watching some Rich Cooper videos, he always says "Women don't care about your struggles, they just hang around at the finish line and pick the winners". I think there's some truth in that, but it's less of a black pill idea than what is currently possible here.

 

[jhonny9546]

I've always gotten the impression that most on this forum push the idea that the two relationships are:

1) Muscular, good looking alpha guy that she wants to have sex with.
2) Stable, provider type that she'll marry, but has zero attraction for.

I've never agreed with that, because I've never been in an LTR where the girl has not been sexually desirous. I've heard of them, never experienced it.

I've been watching some Rich Cooper videos, he always says "Women don't care about your struggles, they just hang around at the finish line and pick the winners". I think there's some truth in that, but it's less of a black pill idea than what is currently possible here.

I believe there is a bigger picture to this.

Having said that, my original post is intended to understand what is at the basis of human nature if you think about it.

Each of us has a percentage of internal and external validation.
Each of us varies in this.

If you think about it, couples are successful when both partners fit well in a certain socio-economic environment.
Sometimes it's so simple and so stupid.

Women will have desire for an alpha, handsome, but if he is not validated, from her environment, it will not be considered for an LTR.

But to say that she isn't attracted to him? Wrong.

I think at this point it's more about something else: having validation for your relationship project at the right time in the right place.

We always take some things for granted as men, but if a woman is looking for someone to help her with her grocery shop, and make a family, and to work with her and take care of the business, once she finds him, then that is her ideal of her world.
You understand very well that she might be attracted to a male client who is much more handsome, physically fit, economically and socially in a better position, but does not fit the mold she has with her current husband, and which is also validated by all the people close to them.

It's simply family, friends, and the surrounding environment that keeps two people together sometimes, rather than them feeling like they need to be together. Don't you think so? People look to others for confirmation that they are doing well.

I do not know if this is a characteristic of "less evolved" relationships; nowadays, everyone has their own career, and instead of seeking a partner to build a shared life and follow a predetermined path, people simply look for an emotionally compatible partner while maintaining entirely separate careers.

It's becoming different since online dating, but there still are women who decide because of their environment (father, grandfather, uncle, friends, brother)

Very intellingent guys, become someone indispensable for a woman's father, grandfather, uncle, friend, brother, relative, then those will talk well about him with her, and she will change her mind about this man that she never felt attracted to.
That is what many manipulators do.. They say I will become indispensable to her environment so that she cannot end the raltionship with me, because it's bigger than that, it's actually my relationship with all her environment, so it's like she had to escape somewhere

This could mean that as men we need to focus more on creating or entering environments where people respect us and think highly of us. "Marry" those people, really! Spend most of your time with them.

For this reason, once you find them, you should hold onto the people who speak well to you, are loyal, who make you feel good, who carry your name high, whatever their physical appearance or socio economic background may be.

Let them spread the voice, on how good of a man you're.
This will make a man possess some signaling elements such as social proof, pre selection

 

[zekko]

If you think about it, couples are successful when both partners fit well in a certain socio-economic environment.
Sometimes it's so simple and so stupid.
Women will have desire for an alpha, handsome, but if he is not validated, from her environment, it will not be considered for an LTR.
But to say that she isn't attracted to him? Wrong.

Speaking of Rich Cooper (as I did earlier), his way of explaining women's different mating strategies is to tie them to what part of the hormonal cycle she's in. They want different things at different times of the month. Not a new idea by any means, but an interesting one.

 

[jhonny9546]

Speaking of Rich Cooper (as I did earlier), his way of explaining women's different mating strategies is to tie them to what part of the hormonal cycle she's in. They want different things at different times of the month. Not a new idea by any means, but an interesting one.

I can't fault you on that; I often see it in my daily life.
It's as if they have two completely different personalities depending on the stage of their cycle.

And yet, it's not something all women experience; some are affected much more than others, to the point where they can really change overnight from light to dark.