First, a little verse I wrote looking over the Himalayas at 3.5 km altitude a few days ago, poetically entitled "On Social Function & Expectation":
I am always walking towards the distant mountain
Bit it is always in the horizon, the neighbouring realm.
I have sought too long without luck.
I will master and develop my own domain
And the mountain will come to me.
Sancho Panca, our standard ignorant AFC buffoon asks:
"Now what does that have to do with social interaction, you say?"
Lots. But let us leave the verse for now and turn to the principle of Action vs. Re-action.
Now, inherently, there is nothing wrong with reaction. Reaction merely means that you are habitually re-acting decisions and priorities made a long time ago. However, from the perspective of functioning socially (which is really quite neccesary if you want to get women), re-acting is a problem, since your reactions will most likely be AFC. They manifest due to certain misconceptions about social interaction, which can essentially be boiled down to one thing:
The focus is on the other part - not you.
By this, I don't mean that the topic of the conversation should be about yourself. The problem with normal AFC socialising is that the aim of any conversation is centred on the other part. You will try and be successful in her eyes, try to appease her, discuss things she will like. And yet, at the end of the day, we find that such interaction is not really satisfying. Why is that?
"Yes, why is that", Sancho Panca asks.
Because in trying to satisfy the other part, we start out from the assumption that they are not already satisfied. The more you try and appease or satisfy your social counterpart (for the purpose of this post, women), the more you will enforce the notion upon which this pattern of behaviour is based: That we are not already satisfying them.
The mountain remains in the horizon and will stay there, because that is the premise on which we set out to seek it.
If that premise is not established, then the mountain is not in the horizon.
Contrary to other social techniques, content is quite irrelevant from this perspective. What we need to do is learn to change our basic premise in interaction. You are not there to appease or satisfy them in any way whatsoever. You interact purely to satisfy yourself.
"Yeah, easier said than done," Sanco Panca says.
Most certainly. The key to changing our habituated AFC re-actions is quite simple though: Pause and ACT.
Yes, it is really that simple. Whenever the ball is in your court and it is your turn to say something, you pause. Contrary to what you may think or fear, this won't make you seem nervous and uncertain or simply a dimwit. On the contrary, you will excude consideration and authority.
So why pause then? Simply to prevent us from re-acting habituated choices and priorities based on flawed assumptions. The first major benefit is that it prevents you from doing what your momma always told you not to: Don't speak unless you have anything worthwhile to say. A whole lot of awkward moments and an equally lot of potential trouble from spouting inconsiderate crap is immediately avoided by a simple pause. And as a side benefit, pausing actually empowers conversation.
The second major benefit is that pausing gives you the space to ACT. As you pause, simply be mindful of your habitual reaction, what you were gonna say without reflection. Then you stop and you get to choose what YOU want to say. You develop and master your own domain and the mountain will effortlessly come to you. Why is that? As a friend of mine once related to me: "I spent all this time worrying about other people's opinions and what they might think of me. Eventually I discovered that other people were actually far too preoccupied with worrying about what I thought of them to be indulging opinions about me."
Sancho Panca gets a glimpse of inspiration and exclaims: "Hell yeah, I don't give a sh!t about what other people think."
Wrong again, this is not what is being communicated here. What this post is essentially saying is that you SHOULD care about other people. The indifferent attitude displayed by Senor Panca serves only to lessen our humanity and transform is into compassion-ridden little vampires. The difference is that we care about PEOPLE. Not what people THINK. Why? Because we CHOOSE to do so. We may consider what other people think, but we are not swayed by their thoughts. Our actions are swayed by our own decisions now.
By being a man-of-action, empowered by self-authority, we choose to give out caring, as opposed to wanting it. The effectiveness of this logic in the context of succesfully functioning socially is quite obvious: People are quite naturally gonna be attracted by people who give out, as opposed to people who want. And as we develop this habit of positivity, we find that the more we give, the more we receive in return, from ourselves. We find satisfaction and happiness within our own domain. The mountain was here all along. Social success is merely a pleasurable sidebenefit. An outlet for sharing our own happiness, because we care about people.
WHAT you say then is not at all important compared to WHy you say it. Pausing givesd you time to choose that. If you find that you have nothing to GIVE to the conversation, then silence, or a simple observational comment, is more than sufficient. Why? because we do not compromise ourselves in appeasing others. We satisfy them by giving and contributing to others. They are already spending lots of energy appeasing you.
Sancho Panca raises an objection: "Yeah, but what about those that are judging you from the first second and don't give you the time of day. It's obvious they are not preoccupied with caring what I think of them."
Actually, my dear Sancho, the real question is: Why do you want to invest time and energy in such people in the first place? There are gonna be instances where you interact with such people of course, and in some cases even by choice. Here, another benefit becomes apparent because we do not compromise our own domain. We choose to respond, and if that response is not met, then there is no harm done, because we have not invested any energy in trying to appease them. Our focus is on our own contribution and this is not conditioned by anyone's opinion but your own.
"It sounds good and all, but are we really supposed to forget the tips about becoming master conversationalists and such?" Panca asks.
If they compromise yourself - YES. They are not the focus, You are. You may find that this ties in with other fundamental DJ principles, such as the fact that YOU are the prize for the women, not the other way around. techniques are just imitations based on principles. They are useful for breaking your habitual patterns, but they are really no more than means to an end which is changing your basic perspective on yourself and others.
"Right. This is getting a bit long though and I am anxious to try it out now", Panca says.
My mistake, I do tend to get a bit longwinded (and as a demonstration, this was presented not as an excuse, I do not need such compromisations, but out of my own desire for selfimprovement). The proof is in the doing.
I am always walking towards the distant mountain
Bit it is always in the horizon, the neighbouring realm.
I have sought too long without luck.
I will master and develop my own domain
And the mountain will come to me.
Sancho Panca, our standard ignorant AFC buffoon asks:
"Now what does that have to do with social interaction, you say?"
Lots. But let us leave the verse for now and turn to the principle of Action vs. Re-action.
Now, inherently, there is nothing wrong with reaction. Reaction merely means that you are habitually re-acting decisions and priorities made a long time ago. However, from the perspective of functioning socially (which is really quite neccesary if you want to get women), re-acting is a problem, since your reactions will most likely be AFC. They manifest due to certain misconceptions about social interaction, which can essentially be boiled down to one thing:
The focus is on the other part - not you.
By this, I don't mean that the topic of the conversation should be about yourself. The problem with normal AFC socialising is that the aim of any conversation is centred on the other part. You will try and be successful in her eyes, try to appease her, discuss things she will like. And yet, at the end of the day, we find that such interaction is not really satisfying. Why is that?
"Yes, why is that", Sancho Panca asks.
Because in trying to satisfy the other part, we start out from the assumption that they are not already satisfied. The more you try and appease or satisfy your social counterpart (for the purpose of this post, women), the more you will enforce the notion upon which this pattern of behaviour is based: That we are not already satisfying them.
The mountain remains in the horizon and will stay there, because that is the premise on which we set out to seek it.
If that premise is not established, then the mountain is not in the horizon.
Contrary to other social techniques, content is quite irrelevant from this perspective. What we need to do is learn to change our basic premise in interaction. You are not there to appease or satisfy them in any way whatsoever. You interact purely to satisfy yourself.
"Yeah, easier said than done," Sanco Panca says.
Most certainly. The key to changing our habituated AFC re-actions is quite simple though: Pause and ACT.
Yes, it is really that simple. Whenever the ball is in your court and it is your turn to say something, you pause. Contrary to what you may think or fear, this won't make you seem nervous and uncertain or simply a dimwit. On the contrary, you will excude consideration and authority.
So why pause then? Simply to prevent us from re-acting habituated choices and priorities based on flawed assumptions. The first major benefit is that it prevents you from doing what your momma always told you not to: Don't speak unless you have anything worthwhile to say. A whole lot of awkward moments and an equally lot of potential trouble from spouting inconsiderate crap is immediately avoided by a simple pause. And as a side benefit, pausing actually empowers conversation.
The second major benefit is that pausing gives you the space to ACT. As you pause, simply be mindful of your habitual reaction, what you were gonna say without reflection. Then you stop and you get to choose what YOU want to say. You develop and master your own domain and the mountain will effortlessly come to you. Why is that? As a friend of mine once related to me: "I spent all this time worrying about other people's opinions and what they might think of me. Eventually I discovered that other people were actually far too preoccupied with worrying about what I thought of them to be indulging opinions about me."
Sancho Panca gets a glimpse of inspiration and exclaims: "Hell yeah, I don't give a sh!t about what other people think."
Wrong again, this is not what is being communicated here. What this post is essentially saying is that you SHOULD care about other people. The indifferent attitude displayed by Senor Panca serves only to lessen our humanity and transform is into compassion-ridden little vampires. The difference is that we care about PEOPLE. Not what people THINK. Why? Because we CHOOSE to do so. We may consider what other people think, but we are not swayed by their thoughts. Our actions are swayed by our own decisions now.
By being a man-of-action, empowered by self-authority, we choose to give out caring, as opposed to wanting it. The effectiveness of this logic in the context of succesfully functioning socially is quite obvious: People are quite naturally gonna be attracted by people who give out, as opposed to people who want. And as we develop this habit of positivity, we find that the more we give, the more we receive in return, from ourselves. We find satisfaction and happiness within our own domain. The mountain was here all along. Social success is merely a pleasurable sidebenefit. An outlet for sharing our own happiness, because we care about people.
WHAT you say then is not at all important compared to WHy you say it. Pausing givesd you time to choose that. If you find that you have nothing to GIVE to the conversation, then silence, or a simple observational comment, is more than sufficient. Why? because we do not compromise ourselves in appeasing others. We satisfy them by giving and contributing to others. They are already spending lots of energy appeasing you.
Sancho Panca raises an objection: "Yeah, but what about those that are judging you from the first second and don't give you the time of day. It's obvious they are not preoccupied with caring what I think of them."
Actually, my dear Sancho, the real question is: Why do you want to invest time and energy in such people in the first place? There are gonna be instances where you interact with such people of course, and in some cases even by choice. Here, another benefit becomes apparent because we do not compromise our own domain. We choose to respond, and if that response is not met, then there is no harm done, because we have not invested any energy in trying to appease them. Our focus is on our own contribution and this is not conditioned by anyone's opinion but your own.
"It sounds good and all, but are we really supposed to forget the tips about becoming master conversationalists and such?" Panca asks.
If they compromise yourself - YES. They are not the focus, You are. You may find that this ties in with other fundamental DJ principles, such as the fact that YOU are the prize for the women, not the other way around. techniques are just imitations based on principles. They are useful for breaking your habitual patterns, but they are really no more than means to an end which is changing your basic perspective on yourself and others.
"Right. This is getting a bit long though and I am anxious to try it out now", Panca says.
My mistake, I do tend to get a bit longwinded (and as a demonstration, this was presented not as an excuse, I do not need such compromisations, but out of my own desire for selfimprovement). The proof is in the doing.
Great post that slipped into oblivion. It's bible material. Five stars. (I disagree a little bit in the topic of conversation. It should be about them and it you should ask open-ended questions and not talk about yourself. This is how to be a good conversationalist. I know that you might say you do not care what others think, but in reality you are sitting there boring others to death with your monologue and not caring! Very AFC. Be a good conversationalist!)