I love it when guys say to me I haven't met the right guy yet. Then I date them, and.... ;) I'm grateful I enjoy my own company so much... But kudos to you and the lucky women you're with, King!
Well whatever works for you, love, it's no skin off my sack either way. I was simply explaining that some men don't care about anyone's pleasure except their own and there are those of us that should probably be giving classes on how to do it right. You can take it for what it's worth to you. However, if you choose to believe that there is no one that can do what I'm saying I think you'll find it a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I hope I didn't offend you. A problem with electronic communication is it's so easy to screw ... up (couldn't resist) emotional subtext. I was trying to be upbeat...
But I do wanna address self-fulfilling prophesies, generally. Not to be argumentative, really. But I find them largely to be a logical fallacy. If they were true, people set on landing the best jobs or making into the most selective universities (via interviews, networking)--just as a tiny set of examples--would be statistically significantly more successful by dint of their beliefs. But in these and similar social competitive circumstances there are usually better/stronger explanations for success/failure.
I don't believe that it is sufficient to believe something will happen, even when this is linked to behavior that reflects conscious or subconscious intent, to have the event come true. And there are too many competing causal associations and effect modifications to substantiate SFPs. There are even evolutionary arguments for why many believe in SFPs, especially in regards to negative life events.
Again, no argument meant. SFPs are just a very interesting human rationalization to me. Have a good one, Kingie.
I'm pretty much unoffendable I suppose I'm blessed that way.
I think your set of examples is flawed. SFP's are typically of the doom and gloom variety not the upbeat, happy ending variety. Like the guy that is depressed because he can't get a girlfriend and says to himself, "I'll never get a girlfriend," he is setting himself up to fail because of his attitude toward his situation. I do think a positive attitude will help but it isn't nearly as easy to MAKE what you want happen as it is to LET the things you don't want to happen anyway.
So your 'I've been let down so many times... well it's a good thing I enjoy my own company so much,' thing is potentially setting you up to never find a person that can and will do what you want and/or need.
This whole thing brings a phrase to mind:
Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right.
Glad to hear you can't be offended. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of SFPs, and there are some brilliant philosophical fallacy arguments to that effect. First, humans are evolutionarily positive animals, even when objectively facts do not support a positive perspective. That we tend to believe certain things says nothing about the empirical mechanics impacting the manifestation of those things.
I also believe the reason pop psychology references SFPs where "doom and gloom" is concerned is because it's easy to assume that a negative social interaction results from an individual's supposed negative mindset, even when that supposition cannot be rigorously verified. But if SFPs were valid, positive outcomes from positive thinking should also be ascribable to SFPs. I don't see any empirical reason thinking you can't should be any more effective than thinking you can, other than humans' penchant for speculation, especially as it regards the desirable element of control.
I see far more guys who believe they're in control of their game who either don't ever get girls (that any of us ever see) despite their effusive self confidence, or who eventually settle for girls they're not interested in (disastrously for them and the girl). And among the guys who don't get girls, contrary to the fluff about attitude and effort, there are other objective reasons they happen, statistically, to remain single. We're not supposed to discuss these in our culture, but that doesn't make them any less potent.
We can agree to disagree about SFPs. There is very little empirical evidence substantiating them, and what social psychology has to teach about the effects (or even roots) of positive (or negative) thinking on outcomes, on further inspection, reveals behavioral traits linked to neurological development that has its roots in prenatal and early childhood development, yet which very strongly affects affect throughout life. For many, affect tweeks just don't work.
Apparent SFPs are also far too easily confounded by other social and psychological variables so that what appears to be the reason for many negative social outcomes isn't, as often confirmed by further research.
A good quantitative assessment of the fallacy of SFPs rests in the aphorism you've offered: "Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right." Obviously, that's not true. There are countless circumstance in a competitive environment in which individuals are confident they can do something yet fail. And there are many, many situations in which someone doesn't believe she has a chance but wins due to significant objective superiority. Not only do we see sociologically that there are important hidden variables that impact success/failure odds, but as an endeavor becomes increasingly competitive, it's obvious that confidence isn't going to be among the chief determinants of success. Otherwise being very confident would significantly improve the chances of winning a coveted internship or job via interview.
SFPs appear to be one way to rationalize outcomes we don't really understand rigorously. Too often, when tested in medicine and quantitative psychosocial experiments, the SFP argument is debunked.
Lastly, I didn't say "I've been let down ..." I said that I am glad I enjoy my own company and have taken care of myself better than others can take care of me. There's no setting myself up for something negative in that. If anything, I'm setting myself up for joy because I am not dependent on a partner for sexual satisfaction.
I'm going to go through on a point-by-point basis because it's been too long of a day and I really don't care that much. However...
Of course if you think you can fly and hurl yourself off a cliff it's not going to work, it's not a literal phrase, it speaks to the attitude of the person doing the thing. Of course from what you wrote (or c&p'd) above it's obvious that you know and understand this yet decide to take it in a way it clearly isn't intended because it suits your purpose. Oh well.
You've also framed the discussion around social interactions which may be how you're applying it due to your experiences but I think it's a broader phenomenon than social interaction.
My empirical evidence is derived from being a performer and production manager. If I have someone with stage fright and they refuse to go on because they don't think they can do it, then SFP they can't. If they think they can, it may be a disaster but SFP, they still did it. I could give a list of similar examples but you seem pretty set in your belief so I'm not going to bother.
I'm interested in what you mean by "humans are evolutionarily positive animals," as I think I've only heard that sort of jargon used in association with natural selection which doesn't have any apparent link to SFP's that I can see.
You also seem to be very "quantifiable results oriented" in your approach, which I think is largely the source of the disconnect we've experienced. Social sciences (including psychology, and others), not being hard science, are inherently flawed at coming to quantifiable conclusions, it's just not within their ability at this time, if it ever even will be, which I doubt.
At any rate, clearly the SFP concept isn't provable in a quantifiable way, so it's hardly worth the effort to debate.
And if you don't think you said you were let down then I'm not sure I took your meaning correctly, because although it was not a quote it seemed to be the meaning your were driving toward. The reason I brought up the SFP analogy to begin with is because if you don't believe anyone can do for you what you can do for you then there's no point in even looking, thus SFP.
IIN to prefer solo sex?
← View full post
You haven't met the right guy. Some of us have studied diligently at how to give a woman pleasure and are rather good at it.
--
AB1234
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I love it when guys say to me I haven't met the right guy yet. Then I date them, and.... ;) I'm grateful I enjoy my own company so much... But kudos to you and the lucky women you're with, King!
--
KingTermite
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Well whatever works for you, love, it's no skin off my sack either way. I was simply explaining that some men don't care about anyone's pleasure except their own and there are those of us that should probably be giving classes on how to do it right. You can take it for what it's worth to you. However, if you choose to believe that there is no one that can do what I'm saying I think you'll find it a self-fulfilling prophesy.
--
AB1234
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I hope I didn't offend you. A problem with electronic communication is it's so easy to screw ... up (couldn't resist) emotional subtext. I was trying to be upbeat...
But I do wanna address self-fulfilling prophesies, generally. Not to be argumentative, really. But I find them largely to be a logical fallacy. If they were true, people set on landing the best jobs or making into the most selective universities (via interviews, networking)--just as a tiny set of examples--would be statistically significantly more successful by dint of their beliefs. But in these and similar social competitive circumstances there are usually better/stronger explanations for success/failure.
I don't believe that it is sufficient to believe something will happen, even when this is linked to behavior that reflects conscious or subconscious intent, to have the event come true. And there are too many competing causal associations and effect modifications to substantiate SFPs. There are even evolutionary arguments for why many believe in SFPs, especially in regards to negative life events.
Again, no argument meant. SFPs are just a very interesting human rationalization to me. Have a good one, Kingie.
--
KingTermite
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm pretty much unoffendable I suppose I'm blessed that way.
I think your set of examples is flawed. SFP's are typically of the doom and gloom variety not the upbeat, happy ending variety. Like the guy that is depressed because he can't get a girlfriend and says to himself, "I'll never get a girlfriend," he is setting himself up to fail because of his attitude toward his situation. I do think a positive attitude will help but it isn't nearly as easy to MAKE what you want happen as it is to LET the things you don't want to happen anyway.
So your 'I've been let down so many times... well it's a good thing I enjoy my own company so much,' thing is potentially setting you up to never find a person that can and will do what you want and/or need.
This whole thing brings a phrase to mind:
Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right.
--
AB1234
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Glad to hear you can't be offended. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of SFPs, and there are some brilliant philosophical fallacy arguments to that effect. First, humans are evolutionarily positive animals, even when objectively facts do not support a positive perspective. That we tend to believe certain things says nothing about the empirical mechanics impacting the manifestation of those things.
I also believe the reason pop psychology references SFPs where "doom and gloom" is concerned is because it's easy to assume that a negative social interaction results from an individual's supposed negative mindset, even when that supposition cannot be rigorously verified. But if SFPs were valid, positive outcomes from positive thinking should also be ascribable to SFPs. I don't see any empirical reason thinking you can't should be any more effective than thinking you can, other than humans' penchant for speculation, especially as it regards the desirable element of control.
I see far more guys who believe they're in control of their game who either don't ever get girls (that any of us ever see) despite their effusive self confidence, or who eventually settle for girls they're not interested in (disastrously for them and the girl). And among the guys who don't get girls, contrary to the fluff about attitude and effort, there are other objective reasons they happen, statistically, to remain single. We're not supposed to discuss these in our culture, but that doesn't make them any less potent.
We can agree to disagree about SFPs. There is very little empirical evidence substantiating them, and what social psychology has to teach about the effects (or even roots) of positive (or negative) thinking on outcomes, on further inspection, reveals behavioral traits linked to neurological development that has its roots in prenatal and early childhood development, yet which very strongly affects affect throughout life. For many, affect tweeks just don't work.
Apparent SFPs are also far too easily confounded by other social and psychological variables so that what appears to be the reason for many negative social outcomes isn't, as often confirmed by further research.
A good quantitative assessment of the fallacy of SFPs rests in the aphorism you've offered: "Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right." Obviously, that's not true. There are countless circumstance in a competitive environment in which individuals are confident they can do something yet fail. And there are many, many situations in which someone doesn't believe she has a chance but wins due to significant objective superiority. Not only do we see sociologically that there are important hidden variables that impact success/failure odds, but as an endeavor becomes increasingly competitive, it's obvious that confidence isn't going to be among the chief determinants of success. Otherwise being very confident would significantly improve the chances of winning a coveted internship or job via interview.
SFPs appear to be one way to rationalize outcomes we don't really understand rigorously. Too often, when tested in medicine and quantitative psychosocial experiments, the SFP argument is debunked.
Lastly, I didn't say "I've been let down ..." I said that I am glad I enjoy my own company and have taken care of myself better than others can take care of me. There's no setting myself up for something negative in that. If anything, I'm setting myself up for joy because I am not dependent on a partner for sexual satisfaction.
--
KingTermite
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
I'm going to go through on a point-by-point basis because it's been too long of a day and I really don't care that much. However...
Of course if you think you can fly and hurl yourself off a cliff it's not going to work, it's not a literal phrase, it speaks to the attitude of the person doing the thing. Of course from what you wrote (or c&p'd) above it's obvious that you know and understand this yet decide to take it in a way it clearly isn't intended because it suits your purpose. Oh well.
You've also framed the discussion around social interactions which may be how you're applying it due to your experiences but I think it's a broader phenomenon than social interaction.
My empirical evidence is derived from being a performer and production manager. If I have someone with stage fright and they refuse to go on because they don't think they can do it, then SFP they can't. If they think they can, it may be a disaster but SFP, they still did it. I could give a list of similar examples but you seem pretty set in your belief so I'm not going to bother.
I'm interested in what you mean by "humans are evolutionarily positive animals," as I think I've only heard that sort of jargon used in association with natural selection which doesn't have any apparent link to SFP's that I can see.
You also seem to be very "quantifiable results oriented" in your approach, which I think is largely the source of the disconnect we've experienced. Social sciences (including psychology, and others), not being hard science, are inherently flawed at coming to quantifiable conclusions, it's just not within their ability at this time, if it ever even will be, which I doubt.
At any rate, clearly the SFP concept isn't provable in a quantifiable way, so it's hardly worth the effort to debate.
And if you don't think you said you were let down then I'm not sure I took your meaning correctly, because although it was not a quote it seemed to be the meaning your were driving toward. The reason I brought up the SFP analogy to begin with is because if you don't believe anyone can do for you what you can do for you then there's no point in even looking, thus SFP.