Social Proof: The Key to Society

[Deep Dish]

On the subject of tips or articles from men on the subject of women, it is almost always in the context of a man going for a woman, as if a hunter is going for a prey. This was brilliantly illuminated in Deep Blue’s essay on the hunter mentality. It is of the man as a single entity. Fine. Okay. But advice, tips, articles, rarely discuss the context of society, except save for wingmen and male competition. Social proof is one of the most powerful dynamics of human nature, a Goliath in sexuality, yet simultaneously understated in mammoth proportions.

According to the on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia.com: “Social proof is a psychological [sociological] phenomenon in which people see others behaving in a certain way, and therefore assume that behavior is an appropriate mode of behavior; or when they see people they esteem approve of something, they themselves will approve of it” (1).

What is social proof in terms of meeting and greeting the ladies? It is two-fold: Firstly, a woman is way more likely to desire a particular a man if she sees him with another woman of unacquainted company. Secondly, a woman is way more likely to desire a particular man if a mutual female friend gives her “thumbs up” of approval.

Why does social proof work?

The following reasons are sequenced from most general to most precise and relevant, which is necessary to properly construct the argument pyramid.

First, understand we are a herd.

This author truly opines that we humans overrate ourselves in terms of how far removed we are from the rest of the Animal Kingdom. We are not quite the logical independent thinking people for which we seem to mistake our species. We are still largely driven by natural instincts hard wired in us when we were mere monkeys inseparable from the rest of the Animal Kingdom. We are heavily influenced by the power of suggestion, most especially by our peers.

Social proof is far greater and broader a social phenomena than merely mate selection. Consider the following examples:

• In high school, teenagers complain high school is characterized by cliques—cliques, not “clicks”—of social groups: popular, preppy, nerds, stoners, and so forth. Teenagers seem to think things change after high school. No, we call it other things. The terms change to peer pressure, subcultures, socio-economic status, occupation, your clothing, and so forth. We are a herd and for those who claim to not follow a herd, do follow but albeit a different one.
• Witnesses to crime scenes tend to change their story if they hear another witness tell a conflicting account. Human memory is incredibly fragile and malleable by suggestion. When the police conduct a suspect line-up, the memory of witnesses tend to shift to whoever the police point out for consideration (2).

  Perception and memory are decision-making processes affected by the totality of a person’s abilities, background, attitudes, motives, and beliefs, by the environment and the way his recollection is eventually tested. The observer is an active rather than a passive perceiver and recorder; he reaches conclusions on what he has seen by evaluating fragments of information and reconstructing them. He is motivated by a desire to be accurate as he imposes meaning on the overabundance of information that impinges on his senses, but also by a desire to live up to the expectations of other people and to stay in their good graces. The eye, the ear, and other sense organs are, therefore, social organs as well as physical ones (3).

• Books on “best seller lists” are far more likely to sell more books than better-written non-“best selling” books of the same subjects. “Best selling” books are made by the publishers, not written by the authors. Aside from denoting a book is a “best seller,” when someone reads the back cover of a book and it has favorable reviews from prominent figures, that person is more likely to buy the book than a book with a mere summary of its contents. The reviewers are in a special position: they know more about the book than you; they have read the manuscript whereas you have not.
• Whole nations have been swayed by faulty but popular thinking. I cite two examples: A) Consider the dot com boom and bust of the late 1990’s. A nation of investors ignored basic fundamentals by investing in companies with no business plans and no profits. Why, contingency upon future profits. Dot coms were the hot thing. B) Consider Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. In both countries a charismatic leader convinced a nation their way was the right way. Winston Churchill called Mussolini “the greatest living legislator.” Sigmund Freud sent Mussolini an autographed copy of one of his books, inscribed to “the Hero of Culture” (4). People followed him because how could such a “great guy” be so wrong?
• The mammoth website myspace.com, currently the fourth most traveled website on the Internet, suffers from horrible web design and is prone to crash on itself and crash your computer. Yet, a “website for friends”, myspace.com is tremendously popular with no end currently in sight. Why? “Would you rather visit a broken down dive [bar] in a not so glamourous part of downtown where the people were great or go to the shiny new built perfectly new club where you didn’t know anyone—nor cared to?” (5).

Even your body follows the lead by other people. For example, yawns are contagious. When one person yawns, other people will suddenly yawn (6)(7)(8).

Terms related to social proof are social contagion and mass hysteria. “This is the social contagion thesis; that sociocultural phenomena can spread through, and leap between, populations more like outbreaks of measles or chicken pox than through a process of rational choice” (9). On the extreme end, social contagion is termed mass hysteria.

During the summer of 1835, a series of six newspaper reports appearing in the New York Sun caused a worldwide sensation. Created by journalist Richard A. Locke, the paper claimed that astronomer Sir John Herschel had perfected the world’s strongest telescope in a South African observatory, and had discovered various life forms on the Moon: a two-legged beaver, a horned bear, miniature zebras, and colorful birds among them. His most astonishing observation was that he could see human-like forms on the Moon flying about with bat-like wings. The creatures were given the scientific name of “Vespertilio-homo” meaning bat-man. These beings were described with angelic innocence, peacefully coexisting with its fellow creatures in an environment apparently absent of carnivores. The delusion began on Friday, August 21, with an ambiguous story about new astronomical discoveries. Great excitement prevailed in New York City and spread around the world; most newspapers had been hoodwinked, including the New York Times. Locke published the articles in a pamphlet and sold sixty thousand copies within a month. The New York-based Journal of Commerce newspaper eventually unmasked the hoax (summarized from Griggs 1852; Bulgatz 1993) (10).

Second, understand women love to think about people.

If you examine any group of two or more women, comprised solely of women, talking at leisure, you will notice that without a single exception the only thing they ever talk about—beginning, middle, and end—is people, either about their life or the lives of people in their life. It does not matter if the women are dining in a restaurant, strolling along a beach, sitting in a bus; nor if they are sixteen or sixty years old; nor if they are white, black, hispanic; nor if they are elegant or dirty rotten. The only thing women ever talk about in girl talk is people, either their life or the lives of others. They may mention how they got a haircut or clothing they bought, in some sort of story of their life, but they never engage in sustained discussions about abstract concepts. Study groups comprised of women are excluded from consideration because in those instances they are forced to focus on a particular subject and are not talking at leisure, i.e. about whatever their minds desire. I have eavesdropped on thousands of solely-women conversations over the past three years, in numerous contexts and arrangements, and I don’t think a qualified exception exists.

(One might critique that rarely have I listened to a girl talk conversation from its beginning to end—and thank goodness!—thus women might have possibly discussed abstractions before or after I eavesdropped, but I commence the eavesdropping at random times; either towards the beginning, towards the middle, or towards the end—whenever I happen to come across them; and listen for as long as circumstances permit. Thus, after eavesdropping on thousands of conversations at random times, for variable lengths of time, if no exceptions have been found it is rather safe to say no exceptions exist. Also, if a woman reading this wanted to “prove me wrong” by talking about… astronomy with a girlfriend of hers for half an hour, that would be dismissed. We are interested in naturally occurring conversations and not in the contrived.)

If you examine mixed groups of men and women, such as a man and a woman on a date, a man with two female friends, or any combination thereof, certainly women can be found talking about abstract concepts and rightfully so doing a good job, but only under the influence of men can the abstract arise in conversation. Groups of men also talk about people but men also talk about other things, whereas women apparently have a profound lack of interest.

 

[Deep Dish]

Women are people interested in people and seem to have a stronger sense than men to be liked. The world of professional skeptics, brilliantly illuminated by Michael Shermer, James Randi, Penn & Teller, is dominated by men. It is uncomfortable to be a skeptic, you get no brownie points with people—who whimsically believe in magnetic water filters or universes controlled by divine beings—by telling them how they are wrong.

You ask: how does the nature of girl talk concern social proof?

It demonstrates how women are entirely socially related. Even museum curators and librarians end up talking only about people. Regardless how intelligent a woman may be, interested in paleontology, she still caves into feminine human nature. I once wrote an essay called “The Book of Woman” and one controversial section of the essay regards philosophy (11). The assertion was women are just not interested in talking about philosophy, or any other abstraction, with other women. People like to criticize that philosophers have traditionally been misogynistic, but in the years subsequent from writing my essay, I have found absolutely true: women are entirely socially related. The relevance to this essay: When a man is out with a female friend and the man meets a new woman, and those two women meet and chat amongst themselves, that man, you, is assured to know exactly what general subject they are talking about. It is only a matter of time for the conversation to discuss him. Sex In The City. Women & Society. What is the difference but wording?

Third, understand women are sisters.

Consider the following facts:

• Women are well known to defend another woman even if unknown to their acquaintance. “Men are not troubled to hear a man dispraised, because they know, though he be naught, there’s worth in others; but women are mightily troubled to hear any of them spoken against, as if the sex itself were guilty of some unworthiness” (12).
• If you eavesdrop on women engaged in girl talk, you will notice that usually a good chunk of the time they talk about other women; the most commonly uttered word seems to be “she.” To borrow from the writing style of Camille Paglia, it is sublimated homoeroticism.
• In my essay “The Book of Woman”, I noted an article found in Elle written by an anti-feminist female author who noted how women will continue to work in a female-staffed company owned by a woman, and feel like a family, even if objectively that owner screws them by ruthless cost-efficiency. Sisterhood at work is apparently more important to them than money at work (13).
• Women feel the need to differentiate their female friends from their male friends. They have “girlfriends.”
• If a man is caught discreetly mocking (or degrading) a fat woman to his friends, calling her a sperm whale, a cow, or what you may, other women will look at the man with shock and disgust. Within every circle of “girlfriends” there is always at least one token fat chick and therefore women are sympathetic of their heavy plight (pun intended). “Attack” one woman and you have attacked the entire gender.

Simultaneously, women hate each other. They hate their “catty” co-workers and hate “those sluts” who “steal” men from them. (They snipe at each other’s choice of fashion which leads to one quasi-irrelevant insight: women control other women’s fashion more than men. You see all these Fashion Nazis saying what’s “good” or “bad” female fashion, supposedly to appeal to men’s sense of fashion, as if we men actually care. They say that it’s a “disaster” for a woman’s thong to inch up her ass for all to see. But as we always say, “Lady: one who never shows her underwear unintentionally” (14).)

Indeed, it is one weird dysfunctional family.

The bit about overweight women raises one good point. It can definitely help a man to be friends with or, at the least, be seen chatting with overweight women. It demonstrates tolerance. Except in pencil thin Somalia and curvaceous Romania, every woman is friends with a fat woman who invariably tells how men are unsympathetic and scornful towards the weight of their situation. This author is generally intolerant of fat but some fat women have pleasant personalities and faces cute enough to withstand other considerations. A person’s temperament is influenced by their body type and fat people (endomorphs) tend to be extraverted, jolly, preferring comforts (i.e. food and people), and happy to talk to anyone (15)(16). Thus, it stands to reason they make for good social butterflies.

Fourth, women are fearful of men.

The number one fear women have is that a man will somehow hurt her; that he might be a jerk, that he might physically batter her, that he might be dangerously mentally ill, or provide for any other problems.

Men, consider how hard it usually is for a buddy of yours to set you up with a woman. It is not impossible, because it happens, but certainly it is difficult and relatively rare. It is perilous. If the buddy is single he almost certainly will refrain from giving up any high quality ladies to you rather than for himself. If the guy is in a relationship, he will likely say that all the ladies he knows he knows through his girlfriend, in which the girlfriend must be addressed directly. Furthermore, from the female perspective, you are assumed to be either just another horny dog looking for a piece of ass or that you are a socially inept loser. Most, even overwhelmingly most, women surmise the only reason why men ever talk to them is to get into their panties, so here you have women thinking that here they have a dog trying to help another dog (or loser) get laid.

Women go through a variable amount of crap with men on a weekly and oftentimes daily basis. They are subjected to insipid pick-up lines of every variety. They get honked at by cars while walking down a street or sitting on the terrace of a bistro. Old men of seventy years of age hit on girls of sixteen years of age and their friends. In nightclubs, they get those Enrico Suave types or thugs trying to grind the sausage up from behind and toss the salad. Many men will not take the word “no” for an answer and persist to make advances when it is made abundantly clear there is no interest on the woman’s behalf. And the “nice guys” with organized personalities; neat, tidy, thoughtful; sometimes turn out to be serial killers (17).

Your mother warned you about strangers when you were a child, for women the warning persists into adulthood.

But it’s a whole different ballpark when a man knows a woman (or borrows a dog or baby). You are “safe.” It goes back to the explanation of sisterhood. Women put up with a lot of crap from random men, are forced to be particularly aware of society’s ills, but apparently regardless of much they hate each other they will safeguard each other from bad men. If a man can get a stamp of approval by a female friend, as a good guy deserving of some love, the work cut out for him will greatly be diminished. Again, the nature of social proof is to accept at face value the judgments of people who we assume to know more about something than us. There is probably some evolutionary explanation from when we were monkeys, then scavengers, out in the dangerous jungles and needed to make quick decisions. As for walking a dog or borrowing a baby, hey, it conveys sensitivity and compassion. “Love is the emotion that a woman feels always for a poodle dog and sometimes for a man” (18).

Fifth, women are entirely sexual.

Or, “What does that girl have that I don’t?”

Women want what other women want. Most women prefer the companies of non-exclusive players than the devotional socially inept. Why? Women complain about men who fear commitment, right?

• “The female brain appears to be more networked than the male brain, which is compartmentalized. PET brain scans reveal that women use more neurons in almost every activity tested compared to males” (19). “Male brains get about 15 percent less blood flow than female brains. To compensate, brain activity is compartmentalized, which means boys tend to fare better when able to focus on a single task” (20).
• “At a few hours old girls are more sensitive than boys to touch. Tests between the sexes of tactile sensitivity in the hands and fingers produce differences so striking that sometimes male and female scores do not even overlap, the most sensitive boy feeling less than the least sensitive girl” (21).
• “While the male brain gives men the edge in dealing with things and theorems, the female brain is organized to respond more sensitively to all sensory stimuli” (22).
• “Woman is only sexual, man is partly sexual, and this difference reveals itself in various ways. The parts of the male body by stimulation of which sexuality is excited are limited in area, and are strongly localized, whilst in the case of the woman, they are diffused over her whole body, so that stimulation may take place almost from any part. When in the second chapter of Part I., I explained that sexuality is distributed over the whole body of both sexes, I did not mean that, therefore, the sense organs, through which the definite impulses are stimulated, were equally distributed. There are, certainly, areas of greater excitability, even in the case of the woman, but there is not, as in the man, a sharp division between the sexual areas and the body generally” (23).

Women go for the sexualized players while the nonsexual nice guy friend composes a symphony. The player is more “in-tune” with “nature”.

 

[Deep Dish]

Consider the framework that I have already provided. Firstly, humans are a herd. Secondly, women who love to think about people. Third, the “sisterhood.” Fourth, people defer their thoughts to the judgments of people who are assumed to be more of an expert about something than them. Fifth, now, they are entirely sexual.

In workplaces, when a man has good sex with one woman, word spreads all around with the ladies from San Francisco to New York City of how wonderful the man was in the sack, in every gory detail. That man, then, can have sex with practically any woman in that workplace if he were to so desire. Restaurants are havens of sex and drama from incestuous sex is rampant.

Women’s lives are primarily boring. They sit on their buttocks all day either at work or on myspace.com and bemoan boredom, or they stand in bars with their girlfriends and denote either the “disgusting” men bold enough to approach or how certain men neglect to approach them. For a man to be the center of women’s attention “obviously” there are things good about him that, from their primarily boring life, they are missing out on. Thus, from a woman’s perspective, if that man, desired by other women and with his pick of the kitty litter, were to pick her of all the other cats, she is so special and unique that she triumphed over all those other felines (who, of course, she despises).

Not only does social proof demonstrate desirability from other women, putting you into the world of sexuality, but it sets things on a timetable. When you are a single lone wolf flying solo there is only eternity; the ladies don’t feel any pressure; when she think she is your only prospect, your ability to get laid any time soon rests solely on her whims, she feels she can procrastinate. Nah, I’m busy this weekend. Oh, I’ve got a lot of “shyt” going on in my life. Gab a Snickers bar—you ain’t going anywhere for awhile. But when they hear or see you made out with that little hot number last night, it is now a race against time

How to use social proof?

Simple. Have female friends, be seen with women even if you just met them, or even “borrow” a friend’s girlfriend. If women assume the arrangement is more than it actually is, it is not necessarily a bad thing. This author never had social proof hurt him regardless of who gave the social proof or the circumstances.

Does social proof work on men?

Yes, social proof works on everyone. Indeed, men generally stay away from a woman if it is made clear she wants another man but men are still human and still heavily influenced by suggestion, albeit perhaps in different ways.

The one piece of evidence this author can readily find which reflects how social proof can work in men is challenge (for other men):

Four highly respected social scientists, pioneers in the study of love, were firmly convinced, as were their colleagues and the general public, that men like a hard-to-get woman better. After all, everybody values that which they have to work for, right? However, not to leave any stone unturned, they conducted an in-depth study called “Playing Hard to Get: Understanding an Elusive Phenomenon” (24). Researchers polled a group of college men on whether they preferred a hard-to-get woman, and why. The responses were predictable: “Well, sure, if she’s hard to get, it must mean she’s more sought after. Yes, if a girl is popular, she can afford to be choosy. Well, my friends will envy me: there’s a lot more prestige in going out with a hard-to-get dame.”

At this point, the researchers felt going through with a field experiment would be practically worthless. It was a foregone conclusion that hard to get meant better. But, being the responsible scientist, they put this theory to the test. They hired a group of young men and women who had signed up for a computer-dating program. The men were to call the women and ask them for a date. The researches told the women that half the time, they should pause and think for three seconds before accepting the date, thus playing hard to get. The other half of the time, they should accept the date immediately, with enthusiasm, thus being easy to get.

Afterward, researchers asked the men how they felt about the women. The results astounded them. In spite of what the men had said in a hypothetical situation, in reality they did not like the hard-to-get women any better. So much for that theory.

The researchers tested and retested the hypothesis in five ways, and all five methods failed to change the result. Just as science destroyed the prevailing theories that the world is flat and that heavier stones fall faster than smaller ones, science has destroyed another myth: Playing hard to get with the man does not make him want [her] more. At least, not at first.

But there was a wrinkle, as further experimentation showed. In another part of the study, men had the opportunity to choose from among five women for a date, thinking that other men were competing for the company. That worked. When the woman was hard to get for his rivals, but easy to get for him, he liked her more—a lot more (25).

There you go.

Conclusion

Women, and people in general, are a herd. The best way to meet the ladies is not by convincing an individual woman of your worth but by convincing her friend, for not only will your chances improve with getting the individual woman but the entire social network. Butterfly tattoos are tacky but it underscores an important sociological factor: women are social butterflies flapping their (tacky) butterfly wings. All they ever do is talk about people. Meanwhile, they must continually look out for and avoid danger whilst their entirely sexual feline bodies crave sexual union with someone who has their pick of the kitty litter. Deep Dish will leave things off with two great quotes: “If men knew all that women think, they’d be twenty times more daring.” “For a man to pretend to understand women is bad manners; for him really to understand them is bad morals” (26).

REFERENCES

1. Wikipedia.com

2. Charles Swanson, et al., Criminal Investigation. Eighth edition. McGrawhill. 2003.

3. Elizabeth Loftus, “Incredible Eyewitness,” Psychology Today, December 1974, Vol. 8, No. 7, p 118; referenced in Ibid.

4. David Ramsey Steele, “The Mystery of Fascism.” 2003.

5. Myspace: Is ‘ghetto’ a design choice?

6. “Why is yawning contagious?” March, 2005.

7. Robert R. Provine, Laughter: A Scientific Investigation. Viking Adult. 2000; referenced in “Why Are Yawns Contagious?” March, 2003.

8. Associated Press, “Chimps can’t help yawning either”. MSNBC. July 26, 2004.

9. Dr. Paul Marsden, “Memetics & Social Contagion: Two Sides of the Same Coin?” Published in The Journal of Memetics: Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, 1998, Vol 2.

10. Griggs, W.N. 1852. The Celebrated ‘Moon Story.’ New York: Bunnell and Price; Bulgatz, J. 1992. Ponzi Schemes, Invaders from Mars & More Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. New York: Harmony Books; referenced in Mass Delusions and Hysterias: Highlights from the Past Millennium. Published in Skeptical Inquirer, May 2000.

11. Deep Dish. “The Book of Woman”. Sosuave.com. 2003.

12. “A Sample from ‘Woman – the compilation’”.

13. “So Much For Sisterhood.” Elle magazine review of Phyllis Chesler’s book Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman. 2003.

14. “A Sample from ‘Woman – the compilation’”.

15. Dr. William Sheldon: Human personality types / human temperament types.

16. Sheldon’s Objective Method.

17. Ronald M. Holmes and Stephen H. Holmes, editors. Contemporary Perspectives on Serial Murder. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 1998.

18. “A Sample from ‘Woman – the compilation’”.

19. “University of Virginia Professor Disputes Notion That Males And Females Are The Same,” review by Frank York of Steve Rhoads’ book Taking Sex Differences Seriously.

20. Michael Gurian and Kathy Stevens, The Mind of Boys. Jossey-Bass. 2005.

21. Anne Moir, Ph.D. and David Jessel, BRAIN SEX: The real difference between men and women. Dell Publishing (paperback), New York, 1992.

22. Ibid.

23. Otto Weininger, Sex and Character. 1903.

24. Walster, E., Walster, G. W., et al. 1973. “Playing Hard to Get: Understanding an Elusive Phenomenon.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26:113-121.

25. Leil Lowndes, How to Make Anyone Fall in Love with You. Chicago: Contemporary Books. 1995.

26. “A Sample from ‘Woman – the compilation’”.

 

[ATribeCalledDS]

That's a danm good research you've done there

 

[Warlord]

True, if you stay at home all the time, and don't make attempts to meet cool people, treat others respectfully, and go to cool places - your social value is perceived low and no one wants to hang around you.

 

[ethnomethodologist]

Wow, at 12:30 Am it is still far too soon for me to be commenting on your excellent posts DeepDish. You make many bold comments, and make many observations, a lot of what you says has meaning to a majority of the population.

Congratulations again on creating a piece of compiled literature to be fauned over. Your points of interest and personal experience portray a sense of understanding.

Continue along this path and perhaps you will learn to write a great antithesis, and in turn create a far more truthful synthesis.

Until then, I applaud your desire to undertand, and to encorporate popular topics. I await the day you can "take hold of your balls" and admit you may possibly be wrong.

 

[Deep Dish]

Hmm, I am somewhat surprised. There are no essays that I can find on here which go into depth explaining social proof. Some tips mention it but none, that I can find, are in-depth explanations. Social proof is an amazing social tool, maybe on par with the magical effects of kino, yet hardly a word has been spent explaining it. Ask a guy why social proof works and he will answer, “Chicks want what other chicks want.” Okay... but why?

There are other essays I wrote and posted on here, most notably “The Book of Woman,” which were significantly longer, more whimisical and incohesive, and non-empirical; but spurred on plenty of discussion. When I answered my critics with a shorter, cohesive, concrete, and empirical essay, with a few jokes liberally sprinkled in, it has been met with thundering silence.

Thanks and props to you guys who replied. It’s only a first draft, so feedback is still appreciated.

 

[resilient]

Originally posted by Deep Dish
Ask a guy why social proof works and he will answer, “Chicks want what other chicks want.” Okay... but why?

On Myspace.com....
It's true.. women don't want what comes easy to them. If you look at some guy's myspace profile that is filled with girls comments of "hey hottie, blah blah, call me" then other women will fight for his attention to be his mate. Whereas some dude who could be completely cooler in all around personality but not know many girls could fail miserably in that department. It's funny when I look back at it I didn't see my ex sh!t testing me to see if there were other girls interested in me in order to keep her IL high and fighting for me. And there I was thinking I was doing good by telling her she was my only babe that mattered most to me. Now she's dating a player on myspace who has tons of pics on his profile with him and other girls making silly faces.

A True Personal Story...
I remember the summer before senior year in high school for the first time in my life I had three girls chasing me and we hung out all the time. Before I formed the group I was chasing the hot blond of the three girls in the group. She thought at first I was desperate and blew me off after a few calls when I was trying to form a band (I played drums, she played bass). Once I presented I was a fun guy to hang around and the girls flirted for my attention she then wanted me after I in turn rejected her. Finally, one of the girls I decided to cave in and date. The group disolved soon after because the other two girls were envious that I picked her over the other two and didn't want to be around us now that we were a couple. It wasn't until I broke up with the girl that I became friends with the other girls again.

 

[djbr]

Hey, that gave me food for thought.

That means that if I ask a woman out and she seems flaky about it, my odds are better if I ask her friend out too?

Wow!

 

[Turncoat]

Deep Dish, i thought you said everything you had to in "The Book of Woman", but this...is MIND-BLOWING INFO.

Keep enlightening us, because your two superb posts already changed my views and beliefs on woman.

 

[Bling]

Why do people have to actually find sources, and even go as far as quoting them in tips. Get to the juice!

 

[Deep Dish]

djbr:
Hey, that gave me food for thought.

That means that if I ask a woman out and she seems flaky about it, my odds are better if I ask her friend out too?

Wow!

:crackup:

Turncoat:
Deep Dish, I thought you said everything you had to in "The Book of Woman".

Yeah, so did I. That is the problem with this site: I write these epic essays to flush out my system, every time thinking that afterwards I would have said it all. But something always comes up and it leaves me stranded to remain on here until I write another essay. I’m hoping, finally, I have truly said it all and will leave this site for good.

Bling:
Why do people have to actually find sources, and even go as far as quoting them in tips. Get to the juice!

Bling, you are only 15, so apparently you have a long way in appreciating how to build effective arguments. If I had not backed up my arguments with citations then when someone wanted to contest me they could easily argue I was speaking “out of my ass” and the essay would fall flat. When I was writing the essay, I intentionally included rebuttals to anticipated objections. If you talk about social proof to girls, the standard responses are “Not all girls are like that” and “Have you met every girl on the planet?” Girls will try to paint the argument that while social proof may work on dumb girls that such simple manipulation will not work on them. Yes, all girls are like that but in order to be credible and hard to argue against, the argument needed to be properly constructed which is accomplished both by citing credible sources and properly sequencing the arguments as to frame the issue. Learn from a master.

 

[Warlord]

:cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

 

[Nighthawk]

Excellent post.