nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Strength of reality

scanlas

I'd feel guilty if I didn't let someone know about this article.

http://www.rsdnation.com/alexander/blog/%E2%80%9Cstrength-reality%E2%80%9D-part-6

By the way, chode = guy who is easily influenced by other people, lacks confidence, can't think for himself, passive, lives by other people's values and thinks they are his etc........

I know the term pick up artist is mentioned but I'd prefer the discussion to be around the main content of the article.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

r3nu4l

That wouldn't be your blog by any chance would it?

You posted the thread, give us your own thoughts first. Tell us how you feel it relates to men and the behaviour of men.

scanlas

r3nu4l wrote: »

That wouldn't be your blog by any chance would it?

You posted the thread, give us your own thoughts first. Tell us how you feel it relates to men and the behaviour of men.

No not my blog. My thoughts are that it is bang on. Most men do fluctutate around in the blue area of the graph. You can see evidence of it on boards. Time and time again someone will post for example about some girl they know who works in a restaurant, they want to ask her out but they are afraid. It drives them mad. On the one hand there is the desire to break free of social conditioning and to be assertive by asking the girl out. But that part of them is weak ( Bottom of the graph) so they don't do it, ( weak reality gives bad emotions). So they return to where they are more comfortable, where they fit in and do what everyone else does and receive implicit approval, so they move a little bit up the externally reinforced reality and feel the safety of mildly good emotions.

Famous celebrities often have break downs and turn to drugs because their strong reality ( and the accompanying strongly positvive emotions) has been destroyed. The externally reinfroced reality is like a house built on sand. It is vulnerable. If they don't get the reactions or feedback they want ( which their strong reality was built on) it can come crumbling down, and they lose the good emotions along with it. So they use drugs as a replacement for the good emotions which are gone.

Snowie

Is'nt that just human beheaving like humans ?

milod

Opinion? I think there are too many pseudo scientific armchair psychology blogs on the internet. Most are obsessed with pick-up artistry and haunted by the sort of guys who think the answer to social interaction can be found in the virtual reality of the web.

All you're reading here is a faux 'science' overlay for social psychology which replaces the correct terminology with b/sh1t jargon and evades the usual ethical requirements of those who study and practice psychology. The article you reference relates to simple peer-group dynamics. You'll find far more thorough and insightful reading on amazon...

But hey, if the blogs interest you or help build self esteem, best of luck.

scanlas

milod wrote: »

Opinion? I think there are too many pseudo scientific armchair psychology blogs on the internet. Most are obsessed with pick-up artistry and haunted by the sort of guys who think the answer to social interaction can be found in the virtual reality of the web.

All you're reading here is a faux 'science' overlay for social psychology which replaces the correct terminology with b/sh1t jargon and evades the usual ethical requirements of those who study and practice psychology. The article you reference relates to simple peer-group dynamics. You'll find far more thorough and insightful reading on amazon...

But hey, if the blogs interest you or help build self esteem, best of luck.

Your comments don't address the actual content of the article. If you don't agree with it explain your reasoning.

L31mr0d

This article has a real air of codology about it.

I mean throwing out a statement like this: "Voila, modern day society is creating armies of chodes – about 80% or more of the male population" without any references made me instantly stop listening.

scanlas

L31mr0d wrote: »

This article has a real air of codology about it.

I mean throwing out a statement like this: "Voila, modern day society is creating armies of chodes – about 80% or more of the male population" without any references made me instantly stop listening.

So fact, because of the above statement it must be all rubbish and hold absolutely no truth. It's just a little bit of humour.

If you look at society most men are lemmings. How many men see an attractive woman and talk to her sober. The majority don't do it because they are living in a socially conditioned reality. They don't do it because it's not the done thing.They don't live by their own rules. ie most men are lemmings. Emotions are what keep men stuck in lemming status, it's also why most men are unattractive to women and are "lucky" when they get sex. It's why most men have to pester their girlfriend for sex.

Snowie

scanlas wrote: »

If you look at society most men are lemmings. How many men see an attractive woman and talk to her sober. The majority don't do it because they are living in a socially conditioned reality. They don't do it because it's not the done thing.

Its not? who says david dlangalo and Neil Straus and the rest of the long line of P.U.A Budahs ?

scanlas wrote: »

They don't live by their own rules. ie most men are lemmings.

I think you'le find that they do, as i speak for my self i can talk to any human im not put of bye looks or confidance i dont have to break the Ice with a magic trick or some Brand New Second hand metyhod past on down the line bye dome PUA who likes to spout about his gargantuas level of expertease when it comes to pulling women yet he lives with his mother...RIOGHT

scanlas wrote: »

Emotions are what keep men stuck in lemming status,

Please enlighten me into what this lemming syndrome is?

scanlas wrote: »

it's also why most men are unattractive to women and are "lucky" when they get sex. It's why most men have to pester their girlfriend for sex.

Have you ever had a gf ? or maybe just maybe you've been sruck playing warhammer 40,000 and world of war crfat and suddenly realised that there is in fact thinsg called women or maybe these are just your experense's ?

scanlas

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

Its not? who says david dlangalo and Neil Straus and the rest of the long line of P.U.A Budahs ?

I think you'le find that they do, as i speak for my self i can talk to any human im not put of bye looks or confidance i dont have to break the Ice with a magic trick or some Brand New Second hand metyhod past on down the line bye dome PUA who likes to spout about his gargantuas level of expertease when it comes to pulling women yet he lives with his mother...RIOGHT

Please enlighten me into what this lemming syndrome is?

Have you ever had a gf ? or maybe just maybe you've been sruck playing warhammer 40,000 and world of war crfat and suddenly realised that there is in fact thinsg called women or maybe these are just your experense's ?

There's no need to get personal. Also I really don't want to talk about PUA on this thread. Did you actually read the blog post?

It seems fairly obvious most people live to fit in (which is natural) rather than to express authentically. This isn't just about attracting women, it's about life and living from first hand experience and through your own intentions. Being yourself is one of the scariest things most people can do (excluding swimming with sharks etc..).

By the way, can you explain why famous celebrities have these break downs where they turn to drugs? and not some cliche like demons, in detail.

Snowie

scanlas wrote: »

There's no need to get personal. Also I really don't want to talk about PUA on this thread. Did you actually read the blog post?

It seems fairly obvious most people live to fit in (which is natural) rather than to express authentically. This isn't just about attracting women, it's about life and living from first hand experience and through your own intentions. Being yourself is one of the scariest things most people can do (excluding swimming with sharks etc..).

By the way, can you explain why famous celebrities have these break downs where they turn to drugs? and not some cliche, in detail.

I'm not getting personal!

But you have because your hole idealisim is revolving around brain washed lemmings that beheave in away as well as comunicate in away that makes them look like lemmings you follow me? and the fact that you bring women into the post perfectly suggests that you are indeed a P.U.A. Also its om that blog a number of time's.

Would you not agree that infact socity has some how blended human into the way we are that walking around in 6 inch soled boots and all leather is slightly strange to some people, well then no I don't what i think is stranger is people like you having to some how gonger an ideal that buy beheaveing in a some what different manor your being some what authentic. Which is not the case.

you dont have to dress differently or say out landish thing's to get noticed. Or woffel on like you no everything to women in order to some how pull a woman. Women are curious creature's one interests them more the guy sitting with his mates chating to his mates and enjoying his friend compnay or the guy sleazing over her trying to pull her buy being really funny and where inmore case's turns out to be nothing more then a clown?

Yes being your self is scarey thanksfull im at ease with who I am. I'l tell you what seeing an avalanch is 200 times more scarey then being your self!

Yeah i can easlly, you have cammera shoved in your face and every movement of you written down in some mag from what you eat to what you baught to how bad you looked... The reason this happens is because they can't be them selves any more they have an image to up hold! There in the lime light and humans look on these people like there some kind of god!

Thus turning to drugs for nothing more then escapisim!
why do so many of them go to therpist or buy into crazy ass relgions?

scanlas

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

I'm not getting personal!

But you have because your hole idealisim is revolving around brain washed lemmings that beheave in away as well as comunicate in away that makes them look like lemmings you follow me? and the fact that you bring women into the post perfectly suggests that you are indeed a P.U.A. Also its om that blog a number of time's.

Would you not agree that infact socity has some how blended human into the way we are that walking around in 6 inch soled boots and all leather is slightly strange to some people, well then no I don't what i think is stranger is people like you having to some how gonger an ideal that buy beheaveing in a some what different manor your being some what authentic. Which is not the case.

you dont have to dress differently or say out landish thing's to get noticed. Or woffel on like you no everything to women in order to some how pull a woman. Women are curious creature's one interests them more the guy sitting with his mates chating to his mates and enjoying his friend compnay or the guy sleazing over her trying to pull her buy being really funny and where inmore case's turns out to be nothing more then a clown?

Yes being your self is scarey thanksfull im at ease with who I am. I'l tell you what seeing an avalanch is 200 times more scarey then being your self!

Yeah i can easlly, you have cammera shoved in your face and every movement of you written down in some mag from what you eat to what you baught to how bad you looked... The reason this happens is because they can't be them selves any more they have an image to up hold! There in the lime light and humans look on these people like there some kind of god!

Thus turning to drugs for nothing more then escapisim!
why do so many of them go to therpist or buy into crazy ass relgions?

I agree some people do things differently just for attention and justify it by saying they are being themselves. I'm not talking about that. Most people don't express themselves freely, they epress themselves through a filter of a self image which they like to have reinforced. That's often the reason why so many people hate awkward silences. The curtains are pulled back from their self image and role that they are playing. By the way I'm no PUA.

Can you explain why most men can't approach a woman they are attracted to during the day while sobre if they aren't lemmings confined in their comfortable reality?

Snowie

scanlas wrote: »

I agree some people do things differently just for attention and justify it by saying they are being themselves. I'm not talking about that. Most people don't express themselves freely, they epress themselves through a filter of a self image which they like to have reinforced. That's often the reason why so many people hate awkward silences. The curtains are pulled back from their self image and role that they are playing. By the way I'm no PUA.

maybe and just maybe it's just me but some people don't feel they need to express them selves they don't notice the need and there for are ignorent?

Other people do it out of attention and don't like being part of the norm... they think bye being an induvidual your suddenly different. What they tend to forget is where all different its weather you, me or any other person can except that.

You may say your not a pua but i beleave you read a lot about them!

scanlas wrote: »

Can you explain why most men can't approach a woman they are attracted to during the day while sobre if they aren't lemmings confined in their comfortable reality?

Yea fear of rejection, shyness, don't know what to say, no confidance with in them selves or how they look or maybe there just very self conous, inner critics, protecting them selves against dissapoint from rejection? or not knowing what to say which is a confidance thing.

which is unstandble no matter how tough you are thre are somthings that can hurt you rejection can be one of those things.

scanlas

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

maybe and just maybe it's just me but some people don't feel they need to express them selves they don't notice the need and there for are ignorent?

Other people do it out of attention and don't like being part of the norm... they think bye being an induvidual your suddenly different. What they tend to forget is where all different its weather you, me or any other person can except that.

You may say your not a pua but i beleave you read a lot about them!

Yea fear of rejection, shyness, don't know what to say, no confidance with in them selves or how they look or maybe there just very self conous, inner critics, protecting them selves against dissapoint from rejection? or not knowing what to say which is a confidance thing.

which is unstandble no matter how tough you are thre are somthings that can hurt you rejection can be one of those things.

You are misinterpreting me when I say express yourself freely. I know the people you talk about who bang on about being an individual, they are on the right side of the graph as they need to have there reality reinforced. On the left side of the graph you are present and in the moment. Your actions flow out of you so to speak. Those people who say they are individuals are just looking to reinforce there "individual ego". That's not present behaviour. Look at a 3 year old the way he expresses himself freely, he is not doing it to be an individual, he is just in the moment and the actions flow out of him.

When you are far left on the graph you don't run out of things to say no matter how stupid or feel anxous or fear rejection as their reality is internally reinforced, it is a state of mind. Most people suffer those anxieties because their drawing their feel good emotions externally and most can't get enough reinforcement to do things like chat up women during the day. Egotistical people are often far on the right and appear very confident. but it is unstable, if circumstances change that confidence can dissapear in a second. On the far left of the graph confidence is solid and stable, no fleeting circumstance can take it away.

Mr Benevolent

scanlas wrote: »

You are misinterpreting me when I say express yourself freely. I know the people you talk about who bang on about being an individual, they are on the right side of the graph as they need to have there reality reinforced. On the left side of the graph you are present and in the moment. Your actions flow out of you so to speak. Those people who say they are individuals are just looking to reinforce there "individual ego". That's not present behaviour. Look at a 3 year old the way he expresses himself freely, he is not doing it to be an individual, he is just in the moment and the actions flow out of him.

When you are far left on the graph you don't run out of things to say no matter how stupid or feel anxous or fear rejection as their reality is internally reinforced, it is a state of mind. Most people suffer those anxieties because their drawing their feel good emotions externally and most can't get enough reinforcement to do things like chat up women during the day. Egotistical people are often far on the right and appear very confident. but it is unstable, if circumstances change that confidence can dissapear in a second. On the far left of the graph confidence is solid and stable, no fleeting circumstance can take it away.

OP, are you nerving yourself to become a PUA? If so please just do it and don't coat it in faux-psychological Freudspeak for justification (this 'I don't have a girlfriend, therefore it's society's fault' attitude.) I know psychology well and that blog is utter conscience-assuaging bullsh!t. If you was to make an ass out of yourself you don't need our permission.

Snowie

scanlas wrote: »

You are misinterpreting me when I say express yourself freely. I know the people you talk about who bang on about being an individual, they are on the right side of the graph as they need to have there reality reinforced. On the left side of the graph you are present and in the moment. Your actions flow out of you so to speak. Those people who say they are individuals are just looking to reinforce there "individual ego". That's not present behaviour. Look at a 3 year old the way he expresses himself freely, he is not doing it to be an individual, he is just in the moment and the actions flow out of him.

When you are far left on the graph you don't run out of things to say no matter how stupid or feel anxous or fear rejection as their reality is internally reinforced, it is a state of mind. Most people suffer those anxieties because their drawing their feel good emotions externally and most can't get enough reinforcement to do things like chat up women during the day. Egotistical people are often far on the right and appear very confident. but it is unstable, if circumstances change that confidence can dissapear in a second. On the far left of the graph confidence is solid and stable, no fleeting circumstance can take it away.

What i say about you?
What does that say about people who write the blog you posted?

that buy writeing aosmething on a blog and not and almost beleaveing in them selves ? in order to afirm there ideals and hope other will to bye no means is the way forward...

milod

scanlas wrote: »

Your comments don't address the actual content of the article. If you don't agree with it explain your reasoning.

My comments did address the content of the article...

"All you're reading here is a faux 'science' overlay for social psychology which replaces the correct terminology with b/sh1t jargon and evades the usual ethical requirements of those who study and practice psychology. The article you reference relates to simple peer-group dynamics"

Perhaps you just didn't understand my point? The 'lemming' syndrome your blogger speaks of is an integral part of the way in which peer group dynamics actually function. I suggested you read more on the subject from peer reviewed, or critically approved, professionally written texts.

There will always be leaders and followers, and there will always be assertive and unassertive males. It's not the fault or responsibility of women that this situation exists. Sexual desire and motivation is entirely another field of study which again is societally driven - just as much by men as by women.

My point was that the blog you posted is barely worthy of consideration in that it is skewed in context and amateurish in delivery.

scanlas

milod wrote: »

My comments did address the content of the article...

"All you're reading here is a faux 'science' overlay for social psychology which replaces the correct terminology with b/sh1t jargon and evades the usual ethical requirements of those who study and practice psychology. The article you reference relates to simple peer-group dynamics"

Perhaps you just didn't understand my point? The 'lemming' syndrome your blogger speaks of is an integral part of the way in which peer group dynamics actually function. I suggested you read more on the subject from peer reviewed, or critically approved, professionally written texts.

There will always be leaders and followers, and there will always be assertive and unassertive males. It's not the fault or responsibility of women that this situation exists. Sexual desire and motivation is entirely another field of study which again is societally driven - just as much by men as by women.

My point was that the blog you posted is barely worthy of consideration in that it is skewed in context and amateurish in delivery.

The author never says it's the fault of women that most men are unassertive and living in reaction to the world. Thats a naturally occuring dynamic. The author explains that any man has the potential to become assertive and to gain core confidence instead of contextual confidence. He's figured it out a long with his colleagues. He helps transform chodes into assertive men and it works.

Wibbs

milod wrote: »

There will always be leaders and followers, and there will always be assertive and unassertive males. It's not the fault or responsibility of women that this situation exists. Sexual desire and motivation is entirely another field of study which again is societally driven - just as much by men as by women.

I would agree with your post save for this bit. At least partly. Women over time have selected for traits in men. As men have selected traits in women. So I would contend that sexual dynamics are very much at play in how males turn out and the types of men out there. If more men are becoming more passive, which I would believe they are, or at least more confused at their new roles then mate selection in women is part of that. I would also say that mate selection by women is environmentally driven. So a culture that requires brawn, more women will select for brawn, compared to a culture where brains are more required. I would add to that by saying women in the past even in such cultures may have selected for outlier males as an insurance policy should the environment change down the line.

I would defo agree that there will always be submissive and dominant males(and females). The latter much smaller in number, with a spectrum in between. You can see this in the much vaunted "pure" children too. There are more sheep than lions. Makes biological sense too. A world of high testosterone dominant males would be somewhat of a disaster. Kinda like firearms. Useful in context but you don't want everyone to have them.

My point was that the blog you posted is barely worthy of consideration in that it is skewed in context and amateurish in delivery.

I would agree, though I would also contend that the PUA phenomena is worthy of note. If we set aside the obvious reaction to it. I would consider it narrow minded to dismiss something this popular and gaining in popularity, just because it may appear to me daft on the surface. One can learn much from even the biggest lie, especially why the lie needs to be told.

Let's forget the women for a start. It's popularity as a current meme itself says much about male social dynamics or the emergence of a male social dynamic as a result of social pressure. A debate in itself, but I would contend it plugs into things like the massive increase in young male suicide, depression, loss of focus etc.

Every man is a hero in his dreams even if he is a wuss in reality. This just pushes the notion that any man can be a hero in reality. For a fee of course. The PUA guru types are dominant, or fake it well. So they give the impression "you too can be just like me you chode tm". For a small fee. Yea like a woman would buy a book by Cindy Crawford entitled "how to be very attractive to men". Oh wait they do, so it's not just men who will buy into this.

Aim that at a section of men who feel lost socially, the linear thinking asbergery type male and make it a "system" that they can follow A to B and you're on a winner. It's the "Don't let the big bully kick sand in your face at the beach and take your best girl, get Charles Atlas, muscles by post, Now!" for the nerd generation.

Then look at the techniques that appear to work on women. The observed psychology behind it. Since this is a current meme and I can't get enough of that shíte:D I've read a bit of the PUA literature. I have to say that yes much of it is true. As a reformed man whore I saw a fair bit of myself in some of it. Much of it is not true of course, but yes there is a kernal of truth. It's also interesting because it is bought into by the linear anal types who report back on successes and failures. OK self reporting is no reporting*, but the sheer number involved in this should show some consistencies and IMHO it does.

I would agree for a start that men and women while pretty much the same in most ways and the individual makes far more of a diff, men and women do have differences in the dynamics of mate selection. Quite a lot IMHO. It's where we differ the most I'd say.

It may show cultural diffs too. This has been developed in the US. A culture that has little support for failure and little of a financial safety net for people who slip through the cracks. It would make perfect sense for an American woman in an uncertain situation to select a man for dominance and earning power. A woman in a more socialist culture with many safety nets may select for a more submissive male or select for other features that are more important to that culture.

It's also very dependent on the age of the woman. What works for 15 year old girls, who are more herd like anyway(just like 15 year old boys), does not work for a 35 year old woman and vice versa. I would also say that it's a sellers market and women pre select men. Rarely the other way around. A man who apes one of those men who selects women first will naturally attract more women as much as a novelty as anything else. Women do find that type attractive. The bad boy apes that type well.

So while much of it is BS, it would be worth while looking at it as a live experiment on the ground and seeing where that takes us on the sceintific front.

* then again tell Kinsey and a few others in quite a few fields that and they're held up by many as part of a "scientific" canon.

milod

You make some interesting points there Wibbs and I can go along with many them to a degree, but I stand by my point about assertive and unassertive males for two reasons:

1. Assertiveness is as much nurture as nature, so preselection won't always ensure that the 'gene' for it (if it exists) will dominate.

2. There is much research to back up the theory that females desire different qualities from males depending on the context - the principal theory says that there is a paradox whereby a female will desire an 'alpha' male while fertile but balance this with the long term desire to find a more stable 'safe' partner with whom to raise and care for children.

I can especially appreciate your point about the PUA phenomenon working well stateside but I had hoped that European females would be too sophisticated to fall for it!

Wibbs

milod wrote: »

1. Assertiveness is as much nurture as nature, so preselection won't always ensure that the 'gene' for it (if it exists) will dominate.

I dunno if I agree with that. NOt entirely anyway. I would say yes environment will defo have an effect, but certain aspects of dominance I would contend have a strong genetic element. If things like depression, thrill seeking, tendency to addiction, etc have a genetic basis, dominance would be unusual not to have. And like those traits above nurture has some effect alright. Even something like higher testosterone would have a genetic element. High test males tend to be more dominant than low test males.

2. There is much research to back up the theory that females desire different qualities from males depending on the context - the principal theory says that there is a paradox whereby a female will desire an 'alpha' male while fertile but balance this with the long term desire to find a more stable 'safe' partner with whom to raise and care for children.

+1000 and I would say that that context goes wider too. Yep I've read a few of them and they make interesting reading. One finding was that women who met their partners on the pill were statistically significantly more likely to leave him if they came off the pill while they were together. Her "pregnant" mind wanted a different type partner to her fertile mind. Again stands to reason. A high test high dominance man may not be the best choice for father.

I can especially appreciate your point about the PUA phenomenon working well stateside but I had hoped that European females would be too sophisticated to fall for it!

Maybe but I think they may just be different and which european? Irish would be more "american" than say Italians or Polish.

scanlas

Here's the next part of his series, part 7.

http://www.rsdnation.com/alexander/blog/%E2%80%9Cstrength-reality%E2%80%9D-part-7

He gives some good examples in this one.

Wibbs

milod wrote: »

1. Assertiveness is as much nurture as nature, so preselection won't always ensure that the 'gene' for it (if it exists) will dominate.

Just thought about this, there's preselection in nurture too. So lets imagine a woman who selects an assertive male as that's her thing. She has a son. That son is likely to be under nurturing pressures towards assertiveness from both her and his father.

scanlas

As Robert Green writes in "The 50th Law" our personalities our often shaped by those around us. We don't have a concrete set in stone personality. We are neither shy nor outgoing, as well as many other dichotomies. Out personalities are more fluid. But somewhere on the line people (perhaps a parent) tell you how shy you are or compliments you on your liveliness and you think that's you are. So you form an image in your mind of the type of person you think you are and you tend to live your life through that lens. Your personality isn't rigid like that, it's fluid. So I do think nurture can play a big part in whether you become more assertive than others.

scanlas

scanlas wrote: »

As Robert Green writes in "The 50th Law" our personalities our often shaped by those around us. We don't have a concrete set in stone personality. We are neither shy nor outgoing, as well as many other dichotomies. Out personalities are more fluid. But somewhere on the line people (perhaps a parent) tell you how shy you are or compliments you on your liveliness and you think that's you are. So you form an image in your mind of the type of person you think you are and you tend to live your life through that lens. Your personality isn't rigid like that, it's fluid. So I do think nurture can play a big part in whether you become more assertive than others.

Here's part 8.

http://www.rsdnation.com/alexander/blog/%E2%80%9Cstrength-reality%E2%80%9D-part-8

On the whole another great article, although I don't agree with a few minor details.

Amazotheamazing

The biggest proof of this is the fact that most sports teams are made of people who share a birthday just outside the cut-off for the next age group. What happens of course is that 12 months is a long time in a child's developments so a child born in January of one year will be nearly a full year old (in pratical terms) than a kid same age born just inside the cut-off.

The physically more developed kid will have a natural advantage over the weaker kid, the stronger kid will get more praise, more coaching and is more likely to be successful so that after a while, the weaker kids will be left behind and the slightly older kid will be stick with the sport. There's more detail on it here http://www.behindthenet.ca/blog/2008/12/malcolm-gladwells-outliers-and-making.html

This is the basic premise of what the OP is on about, as far as I can see. If you take two people, of similar abilities, but build up one person's confidence and destroy the other person's, there will be a huge disparity in what they feel they can achieve and how the preceive the world. If this is then re-enforced over and over again, pretty soon you'll have two very different people despite starting out with the same materials.

Most people are conditioned to be average and to accept average. To like Ikea furniture and to go to the same pub every weekend. Society could not function were it not so, imo.

scanlas

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

The biggest proof of this is the fact that most sports teams are made of people who share a birthday just outside the cut-off for the next age group. What happens of course is that 12 months is a long time in a child's developments so a child born in January of one year will be nearly a full year old (in pratical terms) than a kid same age born just inside the cut-off.

The physically more developed kid will have a natural advantage over the weaker kid, the stronger kid will get more praise, more coaching and is more likely to be successful so that after a while, the weaker kids will be left behind and the slightly older kid will be stick with the sport. There's more detail on it here http://www.behindthenet.ca/blog/2008/12/malcolm-gladwells-outliers-and-making.html

This is the basic premise of what the OP is on about, as far as I can see. If you take two people, of similar abilities, but build up one person's confidence and destroy the other person's, there will be a huge disparity in what they feel they can achieve and how the preceive the world. If this is then re-enforced over and over again, pretty soon you'll have two very different people despite starting out with the same materials.

Most people are conditioned to be average and to accept average. To like Ikea furniture and to go to the same pub every weekend. Society could not function were it not so, imo.

What happens when praise and admiration turns negative. Confidence built on external reinforcement is unstable. When you see people who have volatile confidence you can be pretty sure they don't have the alpha mindset the blogger speaks of.

Amazotheamazing

scanlas wrote: »

What happens when praise and admiration turns negative. Confidence built on external reinforcement is unstable. When you see people who have volatile confidence you can be pretty sure they don't have the alpha mindset the blogger speaks of.

Perhaps, but how often do you hear a athlete being described as a "confidence-player"? All the time, and the same is true real life, if you shake someone's confidence in themselves they perform differently.

The blogger seems to think there's people out there with unshakeable confidence, there might be, but I suspect everyone has something that would make them unconfident.

Herbal Deity

Wibbs wrote: »

* then again tell Kinsey and a few others in quite a few fields that and they're held up by many as part of a "scientific" canon.

+1000000000000

I hate the reverence associated with what was essentially opinion, assumptions and extremely flawed methodology.

Sorry, that was a little off topic, but yeah

scanlas

Here's part 9.

http://www.rsdnation.com/alexander/blog/%E2%80%9Cstrength-reality%E2%80%9D-part-9

The indifference threshold idea is very interesting.

scanlas

Here's the conclusion of the strength of reality series.

http://www.rsdnation.com/alexander/blog/conclusion-strength-reality-series

It's genius.