Your 'cited research' is irrelevant to our conversation.
It's not, you just think it is since you're a lawn tech with an ego problem.
I'm not going to explain things again, you can just refer to these resources going forward:
Semmelweis reflex,
Dunning-Kruger Effect.
This sort of substance-less deflection for emotional reasons is extremely feminine dude. I keep telling you it turns the chicks off but that's your problem. At the end of the day you just sound like an insecure bit who needs to get their hyper-rational masculine image validated and has to go online for that fix since women and peers won't do it for you. No different from all the boss girls who ignore the reality of their own incompetence in favor of participating in a cultural circle jerk.
You're overstating emotional intelligence. You don't have to be a mind reader to get laid.
Actually you do. If you come across as some stupid dweeb who can't take a hint you're fvcked. No amount of dancing or rationality is going to save you if the woman thinks you're too stupid to read her signals. No woman is going to make the moves for you...
Your issue is philosophic at its core. People are rational by nature and are ends to themselves. When people act irrationally, it's not that it is in their nature, but it is a default of their nature.
This sounds like the kind of nonsense that would make a woman walk away from you. I'm a pragmatic guy. That's why I'm ignoring your noise.
If you bother looking into any of the resources I provided you'll learn that humans in fact are not rational creatures, and logic itself is not sufficient to handle the complexities of the world. Not that it matters though - you irrationally cling to your beliefs for emotional reasons rather than engaging with scientific evidence.
I know those two sentences don't make sense to you, but let it sit with you for a while, trust your observations, and your paradigm will shift.
Same to you, buddy.
Everything you know conceptually is learned; you have no innate conceptual knowledge. To simplify, you have observations --> you form concepts --> you act on your convictions and principles.
This is wholly false. You should study some biology, psychology, and neuroscience before making statements like this. I think you even complimented the paper I shared showing caterpillars are able to learn and retain the concept of a specific person through metamorphosis and even across generations.
For a typical human example: you don't need to learn that women make good mates logically as some sort of new concept. The idea is so old and intrinsic to our survival strategy that you're born with it pre-programmed and experience it as an emotion.
And wouldn't you know that most human behaviors are driven by market incentives, which ultimately trace back to the desire for reproduction/survival? Really, we are very far from rational on average - we just respond to incentives and have a part of our brain that can think logically for a higher cost, and that's good enough to survive and prosper. Another resource from a Nobel prize winner if you ever wish to open your mind:
Thinking, Fast and Slow.
Let me say this another way
Better not, you don't know what you're talking about.
