Scientific proof pertaining to some behaviors women show

[Bokanovsky]

Thats what military conscription was for, to turn boys into men to make sure bratty kids were corrected and wrong cultured guys were tough how to be men.

Actually, the real purpose of military conscription (which was essentially a type of slavery) was to ensure that the elite had a steady and free supply of manpower to fight their wars. And the purpose of military discipline was not to "make sure bratty kids were corrected", as you say, but to break you down as an individual and turn you into a mindless drone, willing to do what you're told without question and ready to die for some pointless cause.

 

[lavalamp69]

What's your source for making that claim? Mmm...that's what I thought.

And yet you are providing no sources for the BS claims you are making yourself. Man your a fvcking hypocrite.

ONCE AGAIN, POST YOUR SOURCES FOR THE CLAIMS YOURE MAKING IN THIS THREAD!!

 

[Masculinity]

And yet you are providing no sources for the BS claims you are making yourself. Man your a fvcking hypocrite. ONCE AGAIN, POST YOUR SOURCES FOR THE CLAIMS YOURE MAKING IN THIS THREAD![/SIZE]

There is a difference between a source and citations. A source is a single thing from which you obtained information, which is really simple. Citations are literally dozens of references to books, other studies, etc. to serve as supporting evidence to a study. Also consider I mention multiple studies in each post sometimes, which would amount to hundreds of citations. I'm not going to put a burden on my shoulders and spend hours typing pages of citations to "prove myself." I'm posting the truth, it's up to you to draw your own conclusions. There will always be opposition regardless of what one does in life and this thread is certainly not the exception.

-R

 

[lavalamp69]

There is a difference between a source and citations. A source is a single thing from which you obtained information, which is really simple. Citations are literally dozens of references to books, other studies, etc. to serve as supporting evidence to a study.

Wow, you are dense. Im asking you to provide your sources, if you have any common sense, you know what I am asking from you. its pointless to get technical and try to distinguish citation from "source". When someone says "provide your sources", you dont need to ask "do you mean you want me to give you the textbook I got this from or give you the name of the textbook(citation)?" unless you are mentally retarded.

Your point is moot since making this distinction does nothing to establish your credibility, that's what Im confronting you about. oh and a citation can be a single reference to a single book, doesnt have to be "literally dozens of references to books". You could have one single source you are citing in a paper.

Also consider I mention multiple studies in each post sometimes, which would amount to hundreds of citations. I'm not going to put a burden on my shoulders and spend hours typing pages of citations to "prove myself." I'm posting the truth, it's up to you to draw your own conclusions. There will always be opposition regardless of what one does in life and this thread is certainly not the exception.

Oh dear, we're in trouble.. Do you really think Im asking you to provide the sources of your sources? When I say "Give me your sources" and your source is a peer reviewed paper for example, Im asking you to cite that paper, not cite the paper as well as all the sources the paper itself has cited as their references...And I hope to god you are not actually claiming to have "hundreds" of direct sources on the horse**** you have posted. If you are, then you are really making a clown out of yourself. You really have that many sources on the crap you have posted? lol really? I mean c'mon really?

...assuming you have any sources at all, all I am asking you to do is to post a few...surely you can do that if you are expecting TillTheEndOfTime to cite his sources. If it takes you hours to type citations, then you should go ahead and drop out from this university you claim to be attending; Youre not gonna make it to graduation buddy.

And no, you havent mentioned your sources in any posts, all you have done is mentioned that the crap you are saying came from some source somewhere so that you can make yourself appear credible (but you dont, look credible, at all).

 

[Masculinity]

Psychological Reactance

Because of popular demand, all of my new postings to this thread will have citations from now onward. It has been quite a while--exactly a year, in fact--since I have updated this tread due to numerous university responsibilities. Nevertheless, this thread is now a classic I feel obliged to update, so here we are.

Psychological Reactance (also known as reactivity).

Reactance refers to a person's inclination to behave in a manner inconsistent with what is expected. For example, people tend to take longer to exit a parking spot when there is a person waiting than when there is no person waiting.

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.

My discussion: this phenomenon, may be partially related to last minute resistance when you are about to have sex with a woman. That desperately trying to get a woman to get undress and bang her brains out, ironically, may result in your own ****blocking. Once she knows you want to bang her, she is driving the relationship. Women are aware of this, which may also be related to why many women use sex--or the hope of sex--to manipulate men. Consistent with the principle of least interest you have the most power when you are the least interested in the relationship (e.g., buying a car, having sex with a girl).

Campolo (2009). Choose love, not power: how to right the world's wrongs from a place of weakness. Ventura, Calif.: Regal Books. p. 26. ISBN 0830751246.

--------------

What does this mean to you? Do not try to hard to have sex with a woman. Once she is on her back making out with you on the bed, she is practically yours. In other words, it is up to you to mess it up. One way that works like a charm with me is to kiss my target very lightly while kinoing the remainder of her body without touching the crotch area of breasts. Yes, you read correctly. This experience will be so foreign to her--given AFCs in her past--that she will remember you for it afterwards. Needless to say, you will turn her on by teasing her. Touch her back, her gluteus, stomach, etc. If you really want to go the extra mile, you can run you finger between her breasts without touching them or run your fingers very lightly between her inner thighs and her vulva. I have done this few times and it resulted in the woman pulling me towards her in a seductively aggressive manner. At this point, I make them ask for my body (strictly for entertainment and ego purposes ).
Right before I go inside them, I ask "do you want to get f****d? All you have to say is one word, it begins with 'p' and ends with 'ease' ." The rest if history from there. If you keep your self-control and pull this off correctly, she may even thank you for it. But do not take my word for it. Try it out by yourself.

Keep being money,

-R

 

[Jariel]

A lot of people think science = truth, but even science is fallible and research is often biased towards proving or disproving a theory. But too many people are getting caught up on whether this is scientific or not, when really it doesn't matter. We're here to learn how to bang girls, not argue about science and sources.

The information here is solid advice and in tune with most of what is taught here and most of our experiences. It's a great post and there is plenty of evidence to show the addictive nature of brain chemicals.

Give her your full attention and she will be out the door before you can say "I'm a chump." Give an addict a high dose of drugs & he will probably die, just like attraction dies when you give too much attention to a woman. On the other hand, give her few small pills of your attention a week & reward her with a few extra ones when she "behaves" and you will have her coming back for more and more.

This is of key importance! This is where most of us guys blow it with women. Continuing with the drug analogy, it is the withdrawal that causes the addiction. When the drug starts to leave the body, that's when the user starts to crave it. And this goes for attention/affection/love too - you have to allow time for those chemicals to leave the person's body/mind in order to trigger their craving and their addiction towards you...but not so much that they withdraw completely.

This is why many long term relationships grow stagnant. The couples become dependent on the love chemicals, but no longer get that spike. It's like when you first start smoking and each cigarette is a gratifying experience...6 months on and it becomes routine. It's only when it is taken away from you, that you realise how dependent you've become on it and you go through withdrawal. This is why break ups can send you fvcking crazy!!

 

[Masculinity]

Looks do matter and here is the evidence

Do looks matter in achieving success with women? This is one of the most controversial questions in the pick-up scene. In fact, by opening this can of worms, I will have a lot of you challenge what I say. I welcome challenges that are backed up with non-anecdotal evidence.

There is converging evidence suggesting that good looks influence people from judges to women in whom you are interested. People who are attractive receive fewer traffic violations, shorter jail sentences, better customer care, are seen as pure, clean, etc., and even attributed a plethora of characteristics without having any knowledge of who they are.

The What's Beautiful is Good Bias (also known as The Halo Effect) is a cognitive bias in which people who are physically attractive (e.g., small nose, healthy skin, desirable body proportions, lean, tan, just to name a few) are presumed to have other positive characteristics. During one-night-stands (ONS) for example, men have been found to base the probability of acquiring an STI on their partner's attractiveness. That is, men significantly underestimate the probability of contracting life-changing or even deadly diseases if their partner is attractive (Eagly et al., 1991; Feingold, 1992; Jackson et al., 1995).

In addition, having a very masculine physique and being facially symmetric has been found to be highly attractive to women. In fact, attractiveness is so important to the human psyche that we react to it outside of conscious awareness. Yes, you read that correctly. The sight of a highly attractive person of the opposite sex (assuming heterosexuality) can have the ability to "override" or at the very list "battle" with your prefrontal cortex, the logically executive part of the brain (Thornhill and Gangestad, 1999).

Lastly, I would like to add that the literature I have reviewed here is non-exhaustive. There are a number of methodologically sound studies that support and expand on the above findings (e.g., the Waist to Hip Ratio and attractiveness; Johnson, 2007). If you are curious, I encourage you to visit your local library and ask to access peer reviewed scientific journals. Psych INFO is a very good database to check out if you are interested in psychological research.

Still have questions? Watch The Science of Sex Appeal on Netflix.

Keep being money,

-R

 

[Yewki]

Still have questions?

Yeah

-R

Why do you manually type in farewell words in all your posts accompanied by a signed '-R'? You realize you're on an internet forum, right? Comes across as condescending and egotistical.

 

[Masculinity]

Wow, you are dense. Im asking you to provide your sources, if you have any common sense, you know what I am asking from you. its pointless to get technical and try to distinguish citation from "source". When someone says "provide your sources", you dont need to ask "do you mean you want me to give you the textbook I got this from or give you the name of the textbook(citation)?" unless you are mentally retarded.

Your point is moot since making this distinction does nothing to establish your credibility, that's what Im confronting you about. oh and a citation can be a single reference to a single book, doesnt have to be "literally dozens of references to books". You could have one single source you are citing in a paper.


Oh dear, we're in trouble.. Do you really think Im asking you to provide the sources of your sources? When I say "Give me your sources" and your source is a peer reviewed paper for example, Im asking you to cite that paper, not cite the paper as well as all the sources the paper itself has cited as their references...And I hope to god you are not actually claiming to have "hundreds" of direct sources on the horse**** you have posted. If you are, then you are really making a clown out of yourself. You really have that many sources on the crap you have posted? lol really? I mean c'mon really?

...assuming you have any sources at all, all I am asking you to do is to post a few...surely you can do that if you are expecting TillTheEndOfTime to cite his sources. If it takes you hours to type citations, then you should go ahead and drop out from this university you claim to be attending; Youre not gonna make it to graduation buddy.

And no, you havent mentioned your sources in any posts, all you have done is mentioned that the crap you are saying came from some source somewhere so that you can make yourself appear credible (but you dont, look credible, at all).

So much negativity from this guy that I'm not even going to address him.

 

[Masculinity]

:crackup:

Yeah



Why do you manually type in farewell words in all your posts accompanied by a signed '-R'? You realize you're on an internet forum, right? Comes across as condescending and egotistical.

Condescending and egotistical? :crackup:

I really do not see how that could be the case, but please elaborate.

 

[Pardner]

Of course looks matter in dating. Who wants to be with someone they are embarassed to be with?

 

[Yewki]

:crackup:

Condescending and egotistical? :crackup:

I really do not see how that could be the case, but please elaborate.

You didn't sign your name... is it me?

 

[Mr. Bond]

Seriously? There's a LOT of negativity in this thread. If you don't like his posts, DON'T READ THEM. Simple as that.

Robyn - I like what you're doing here. Most of what you have described in this thread confirms what I have observed in the real world. You've touched on some gold here, and it seems like it's working for you. Please continue to share your studies.

What really matters is if this material helps YOU. I think it does. If it helps others on this board - great. If they decide to tear it down and ridicule you, screw 'em. I have posted what works for me, and I have gotten a variety of reactions.

Keep it up - I'm convinced most posters on this board are less concerned with improvement and more concerned with trying to cultivate status and praise to make up for their own insecurities.

 

[Masculinity]

Seriously? There's a LOT of negativity in this thread. If you don't like his posts, DON'T READ THEM. Simple as that.

Robyn - I like what you're doing here. Most of what you have described in this thread confirms what I have observed in the real world. You've touched on some gold here, and it seems like it's working for you. Please continue to share your studies.

What really matters is if this material helps YOU. I think it does. If it helps others on this board - great. If they decide to tear it down and ridicule you, screw 'em. I have posted what works for me, and I have gotten a variety of reactions.

Keep it up - I'm convinced most posters on this board are less concerned with improvement and more concerned with trying to cultivate status and praise to make up for their own insecurities.

Thanks for your feedback, Mr. Bond (witty username by the way--nice). As one of my mentors said, "naysayers will always try to put out someone else's candle so that their own candle shines brighter." What makes it all worth it is seeing another man's life change as a result of spreading one's knowledge. You can count on this thread being active for a long time

 

[SgtSplacker]

Thanks Scars!

Each time I learn one of these diamonds of knowledge, I felt like this information should be available to other men.

"Other men" huh?

I see what you did there missie!

 

[Masculinity]

Reinforcers and Schedules of Reinforcement

Reinforcer: a desirable outcome or avoidance of an undesirable outcome that increases desirable behavior and reduces undesirable behavior. An example of a reinforcer is receiving a good grade after putting a great deal of effort in it. Therefore, the good grade reinforces you to invest time in your homework in a future assignment. Another example of a reinforcer is avoiding a citation by wearing your seatbelt.

Instrumental Conditioning: elicited behavior is a result of a stimulus, which may be desirable or undesirable. For example, a dog who jumps through a loop and is rewarded with a treat (desirable stimulus). Receiving the treat reinforces the behavior; that is, it makes it more likely to occur in the future. A dog that disobeys a command is ignored (undesirable stimulus). Both kinds of stimuli have the same outcome: to get the other organism to behave the way you want.

Here is an example of the power of instrumental behavior, which can generate incredible behavior. Notice how the birds are reinforced with food for their behavior: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozgcKw4MyvY

So why does all of this matter? Most animals have the ability to respond to instrumental conditioning and yes, that includes humans and women.

Schedules of Reinforcement: in order to regulate behavior, reinforcers are delivered on schedules, each of which is ideal to different scenarios.

Fixed Ratio (FR): a schedule of reinforcement in which a reinforcer is delivered after the organism responds to a stimulus to attain a response. For example, a rat may be reinforced with food after each time it presses a level five times. Another example: a boy gets reinforced each time he finishes his portion of vegetables.

Fixed Interval (FI): a schedule in which reinforcement is delivered after a certain period of time upon a response from the organism. For example, your washer and toaster (without adjustment) work on a fixed interval schedule. You know that if you press the lever to wash your clothes or toast your bread, it will take the machine a fixed period of time to give you what you want. Hence, you don't open the washer or toaster over until it finishes and you are reinforced with clean clothes and warm bread.

Variable Ratio (VR): contrary to fixed ratio, a schedule in which reinforcement is delivered after an organism responds to a variable number of required responses, with a constant average. For example, a rat may be reinforced with food for pressing a lever three times in one trial, reinforced for pressing the lever five times the next trial, and reinforced for pressing it four times the next trial. The average responses needed is four lever presses.

Variable Interval (VI): contrary to fixed interval, the lapse of time needed to attain a reinforcement varies from one trial to the other. Rather than a required number of responses, however, what varies is the time interval for the reinforcer to be delivered. When you dry your clothes, for instance, you are operating on a VI schedule, as the time it takes to dry your clothes depends on the number of clothes inserted and the humidity in the dryer, etc.

Why should you care about these technical terms?

When it comes to texting, giving a woman attention, seeing a woman, she is operating via your schedule of reinforcement. This is why we do not double text a woman (rewarding undesirable behavior) or respond immediately after getting her texts (reinforcement that is too quick). This is also why No Contact works (the withdrawal of a desirable outcome, in this case, attention).

If you are not perfectly clear on these concepts, here is a graph demonstration of how deliver of reinforcement changes responses. The short lines marked on the longer lines represent delivery of a reinforcement. Notice how responding freezes on FR and FI schedules of reinforcement. As David D'Angelo stated "getting kills wanting."

http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/intro/ibank/ibank/0076.jpg


I'm going to let this marinate and come back if you guys have questions.


Source: Domjan, M. (2014). The principles of learning and behavior. Cengage Learning.