A question for advanced guys who used to or still do attach to women quickly

[Bboy100]

Normally, I welcome the opinion of all, but for this specific question, I'd like to politely ask that anyone who hasn't experienced some level of change in their abundance with women since the start of their journey please refrain from answering. The reason for this is that this question can only be answered via practical experience. Theory crafting or reiterating what Chase or other writers have written will not help this discussion.

I had a talk with my counselor earlier today about "attachment styles". Our attachment style is the way we bond with others. There are several different types. This plays out in its strongest forms in romantic or potentially romantic relationships. It would take a long time to explain it all in detail. But the long of the short of it is that some people start to attach and care for potential mates very quickly (these are typically people who are more prone to being needy in dating/relationships), some people do it in a reasonable amount of time (these are people we would consider "normal") and some people can't attach to anyone at all (this is a psychological a disorder. For those of you who are familiar with him, I believe Tucker Max had it).

I fall into the first category. Whether or not I show it in my external behavior is irrelevant for this discussion. What matters is that regardless of behavior, I start to care for and obsess over women who I don't know very quickly. I often leave these feelings out of my reports because I feel like its my own shit to deal with and it doesn't really affect my interactions themselves because I don't feel this anxiety when I'm with her only when I'm separated from her. But I'll give you an example of how bad this can get:

There's this girl I've been seeing. Thursday should be our third date. Yesterday, I texted her asking to hang out. She didn't reply for 6 hours. Keep in mind that she was coming back from Spring break that day and she lived 4 hours away from our school. So she had a long trip ahead of her. Not replying for a long time on that specific day is perfectly reasonable. And even if it was a normal day, my text wasn't particularly urgent anyways. So not replying for a while is perfectly ok. Regardless, my stomach was in a knot all day, I felt anxious/couldn't stop thinking about her, I had a million thoughts running through my head (all the while knowing that they're completely irrational and there's no evidence to support them) in fact, I literally didn't feel hunger. I had eaten nothing all day. And it wasn't till after she replied that I started to feel how starved I was. This process happens pretty regularly with girls I don't know very well at all. In fact, I can think of literally 5 instances of this within the past month.

So my question is this: Have any of you guys felt the same way around women? If so, did this ever change as your abundance and options with women increased? Or does this feeling remain regardless of how many girls you're seeing? The reason I ask this is because according to my counselor, its not possible to change your attachment style. If I attach to women quickly, then that's how I'll always be. It can only be managed. But a quick google search says otherwise. Also, it seems that a lot of the guys on here have seen a change in their anxiety with women as their abundance increased.

Keep in mind that abundance or lack thereof (i.e. neediness) is not the same thing. Lack of abundance simply means a belief that this particular girl is special and that you're unlikely to find another one like her again which results in needy behavior. An anxious attachment style (the one I have) means to attach to women quickly regardless of whether or not you believe you can meet another one like her, or any other factors for that matter. In other words, there doesn't necessarily need to be a rational reason for this attachment. It just happens on its own accord.

 

[Grand Pooba]

So my question is this: Have any of you guys felt the same way around women?

Yes, most definitely. Still do sometimes, even now. But it's a different style of thinking about her now - usually now if I'm thinking about her - it means she's thinking about me. Because....I'm too busy doing other things in my life!

Whenever I find myself obsessing over a girl in a debilitating way, it means I don't have enough other things going on in my life. I'm too focused on her and am not giving enough focus to other important things. Too much free time to think over her!

Solution? Go do things! Go live life! Go create and work and grow - in any domain you want!

Ask yourself what would a girl rather have: a guy that is constantly thinking about her and she's at the top of his life, #1, she is his mission and he ALWAYS thinks about her and ALWAYS waits and makes time for her...OR...A guy whose life purpose is totally independent of her and he is consumed by it, he is driven, he constantly works on his mission and lives a totally full and balanced life, and she's just invited along for the ride.

If so, did this ever change as your abundance and options with women increased? Or does this feeling remain regardless of how many girls you're seeing?

Absolute abundance is not and should not be tied to your rotation of women. That is external validation, when AA is in fact internal validation - just knowing you have options and ability to create a sexual relationship with a woman out there in the world in a short amount of time, and also knowing that you live a full, complete, satisfying life regardless of how many women are in it!

 

[metalbird]

This is something that's not talked about a lot here, but it's true:

Just as for every supermodel, there is a man who can make her feel like a little girl, for every tough-as-nails alpha male player, there is a woman who can make him dream about monogamy.

My absolute tendency to get attached has increased as my options have gotten exponentially better, even though the percentage of women I would get attached to has steadily decreased.

Don't forget that women are playing the game too, from their own evolutionary and biological side of the field.

Ultimately, whether or not you will get attached comes down to what you want, irrespective of women. If you ultimately want nothing more than to sleep with a plethora of attractive women without any commitment, you will probably never get attached. If you like sleeping with hot women but ultimately like the idea of settling down, even some day, then you are more susceptible to attachment.

That's just been my experience though.

 

[Bboy100]

Sorry to blow this up into a huge discussion...I get carried away sometimes haha.

Yes, most definitely. Still do sometimes, even now. But it's a different style of thinking about her now - usually now if I'm thinking about her - it means she's thinking about me.

This is mostly true for me too. I guess I should have clarified a little bit. This anxiety only persists when I still believe there is a relationship to be had with her. If a girl tells me she's not interested in me or she blows me off, I move on pretty quickly (save for a few rare occasions...but we all have those). No...I'm talking about girls who I'm currently seeing. The problem is that I'm not just thinking about her. It's legit anxiety...and lots of it. I always get this feeling that she's going to blow me off at any minute. And I'm hypersensitive to any signs that this is true. Like even super stupid things like her "sending shorter texts" or "not using as many emojis or !" or "her not initiating text conversations as often as she used to" will lead me to (emotionally) believe that she's about to or already has blown me off. All the while, the rational part of me knows that all of this is completely ridiculous.

Whenever I find myself obsessing over a girl in a debilitating way, it means I don't have enough other things going on in my life. I'm too focused on her and am not giving enough focus to other important things. Too much free time to think over her!

Solution? Go do things! Go live life! Go create and work and grow - in any domain you want!

Ask yourself what would a girl rather have: a guy that is constantly thinking about her and she's at the top of his life, #1, she is his mission and he ALWAYS thinks about her and ALWAYS waits and makes time for her...OR...A guy whose life purpose is totally independent of her and he is consumed by it, he is driven, he constantly works on his mission and lives a totally full and balanced life, and she's just invited along for the ride.

Yeah. This is probably helpful. I actually suggested this to my counselor, and he thought it would probably be helpful as well. Although, he believes the anxiety itself won't be gone. Rather, I could just distract myself from it enough so that it's not consuming my thoughts. The problem is, for the past 3 or 4 years or so I've felt kind of purposeless. In high school, I actually had more purpose than I do now. I was a big time Wrestler. Schoolwork+Wrestling was literally my life. But for various reasons, that didn't pan out for me, and I haven't really found anything like it since. I know that once I get my Psyd, my career will probably give me more purpose because it's something I can really sink my teeth into. But the schoolwork required to get there fells like just that...work. Not much passion involved in sticking my nose in textbooks all day haha.

And if it's anything less than that, it won't be enough to distract me. Case in point, I went on a 13 mile run the other day just to clear my head from this type of anxiety, and even as I was running and music was blasting in my ears, her "potentially blowing me off because it's been an hour since she last texted me" was the only thing running through my mind.

Just as for every supermodel, there is a man who can make her feel like a little girl, for every tough-as-nails alpha male player, there is a woman who can make him dream about monogamy.

This is also true, but it's not what I was talking about. The difference here is that I get some level of attachment to every girl I meet. Even if I currently have better options than her. lol

Ex. Last week, I met this girl who I was kind of into, but not really that much. She took 4 hours to reply to my text. All the while, I was also seeing this other girl I was talking about in the OP who I like a LOT more than her. But still I had at least some anxiety throughout that four hour period.



P.S.
If you guys are interested in learning more about attachment theory, check this out: http://www.psychalive.org/what-is-your- ... ent-style/

 

[Hector Papi Castillo]

Over the past year, I've opened my heart back up exponentially (I had always fallen hard for women but restricted myself).

And honestly, I've never been better with women in my life. They open their hearts to me so quickly, too and the connections I have with them are truly what you would call love.

My opinion? Go full fucking out with your feelings. Fall hard and love women with everything you've got. You'll get burned for sure. But you'll learn so muchhhhhhhh.

Think of it like fighting - if you hesitate or pull your punches, sure, you can defend quicker and don't have to face the consequences of a full commitment, but you're also never going to get knockouts or really find out what would happen if you fully extended and just put your body into them.

Don't pull back and don't hesitate - go fucking hard.

So long as you're seeing other women and making sure that your love is for ALL women, all pain you get from rejection/getting too attached to her specifically will be swallowed into the ocean that is your love for all women.

Where there is pain, go forth into it. Then once you've gone down a particular avenue enough times, you will naturally become immune/hardened to it, but not out of protective fear but just "been there done that." Once you get there, you won't even have to think about non-attachment; it will simply happen.

Nowadays, I just fall in love with women hard and don't really get burned hard at all. I don't even think about women much when I'm not actively texting/persisting with them - thoughts about them just don't arise. When I am interacting with them, however, I am fully engaged and head over heels in love with them. It seems really scary, but absolutely nothing could be healthier. The pain of rejection/a girl blowing me off passes within minutes or hours and I literally do not think about her again, unless it's methodologically (i.e., HOW did I mess up).

Now, going hard with your feelings does NOT mean be mindless. No nonoono, be mindful. VERY mindful. THAT is what is the difference between the guy who longs after the girl who no longer wants him/loves him and the guy who loves women but can let go when she's gone. By being mindful, you love women hard but are observing the actions and can see clearly how and when you go too far. When you clearly observe the process, you will naturally become more attuned to it than any other method of abstraction and stop yourself the next time you go down that avenue of attachment. don't run from your anxiety or try to distract yourself with your "mission." If you don't have a mission or a purpose, no amount of forcing it or pseudo-proclamations of "GOALS OVER BITCHES" or "MONEY B4 HOES" will help you. I mean, that's why you see all these rappers who apparently got tons of pussy whining about girls they loved in their songs - they thought money/mission would overcome their woman problems, but it doesn't solve the problem. If you want to REALLY get your head around attachment with women, then you gotta sit with it like it is its own mission (and it is).

Show me a guy with a life mission, and he'll trump MOST guys with girls, but show me a guy who has dedicated many, many years to the art of seduction and ALSO has a life-mission, and I'll show you a true fucking Titan. I know plenty of guys who give me the "mission over bitches" charade, but then I see them making some absolutely beginner mistakes with women they really dig. They just ran from the problem of women and thought it would be solved by default - lulz to that. Life-mission is nothing more than passion (attractiveness/aggression) + skill-building (trasnferable to all other skills) + focus (i.e., NOT too focused on bitches). It's great and invaluable to become a monster-pussy-magnet, but it doesn't in and of itself teach you how women think, how to pull, etc.

That's what makes Chase such a goddamned baller - he figured out women THEN got a mission.

As for psychologists, well, I'm going to be honest - I'm not the biggest fan. They think they made progress with P-values and making it "scientific" (which is impossible without hard metrics - if it's any softer than biology, it probably isn't science), but they actually got worse. If you want to know about attachment, study the Pali Canon (Buddhist texts), The Mahabarata, The OG-Testament, the Brand Spankin' New Testament, etc. Regardless of methodological/epistemological arguments, the proof is in the pudding - adherents of the aforementioned texts have found the "state" of non-attachment, whereas I know of no psychologist who has obtained a state of non-attachment via the scientific method. That's real empiricism, isn't it?

Jump. All of the answers you're looking for will be found at the bottom (hint: there is no bottom).

Hector

Edit: just read that you're going for a degree in psychology. I probably look like a douche now. Feel free to ignore my last big paragraph =/

P.S. the girl who you're meeting for a third date was just on Spring Break...have you fucked her yet? Here's something to chew on that will actually hurt at first, but help you in the long run - she probably got dicked up at least once while on spring break.

P.P.S

Keep in mind that abundance or lack thereof (i.e. neediness) is not the same thing. Lack of abundance simply means a belief that this particular girl is special and that you're unlikely to find another one like her again which results in needy behavior. An anxious attachment style (the one I have) means to attach to women quickly regardless of whether or not you believe you can meet another one like her, or any other factors for that matter. In other words, there doesn't necessarily need to be a rational reason for this attachment. It just happens on its own accord.

When you get true abundance mentality, you might realize this isn't true. Abundance mentality is two-fold

1. The quantitative, rational knowledge that there will be more women for you
2. The constant, emotional intuition that there are tons of women out there for you

Your focus is on the first half and think that it can't defuse your anxiety and attachment problems. You are correct.

But you're forgetting about the emotional half. It seems that you're mitigating the power of abundance because when you get anxious about a girl and consciously remind yourself "abundance mentality, argh!" it doesn't solve your anxiety. That is like working out for a few months and wondering why you've bulked up 20 pounds. Give it time. You haven't been doing this long enough, but it will come. The anxiety won't necessarily disappear completely, but it will be so mitigated that it disappears quicker and quicker everytime. This diminishing returns of anxiety will progressively increase as you get more abundance. They ARE interdependent. Not necessarily the same thing, but very,very, very close.

For instance, I'll text a girl and nervously wonder when she'll text me back for maybe a few minutes, especially if I really like her. But because I've done it SO MANY TIMES, my mind naturally defuses the anxiety on its own and I KNOW that I'm going to meet as many girls as I want this week. Abundance + awareness/mindfulness.

 

[Bboy100]

I'm glad to know that it is possible to make it to the top (or somewhere near), even when I'm operating under this paradigm of easy attachment! I guess I've pretty much been doing what you're talking about all throughout. I feel like I get burned hard on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, but that hasn't really changed my attitude at all. I have more girls in my life now than I ever have before (although I'm admittedly still a little slow to seal the deal when things don't go exactly how I plan them...which is often). Regardless, it still feels like my attatchment hasn't changed that much on an emotional level. The only change is that I actually believe it when I tell myself that I will meet a girl like her again because I have reference points to support it. Whereas when I first started, I felt like I was trying to trick myself into believing something that's not true haha. But perhaps I need to get even better before I see any changes on the emotional side of things?

When you get true abundance mentality, you might realize this isn't true. Abundance mentality is two-fold

1. The quantitative, rational knowledge that there will be more women for you
2. The constant, emotional intuition that there are tons of women out there for you

This gets to the core of what this post is about. If this "anxious attachment style" stuff is real, then it is necessarily true that despite achieving #2, I would still feel anxious about every particular women I meet. Why? Because I'm biologically wired to feel this way.

Think of it like its own separate thing. I might have abundance. I might know both emotionally+logically that I will meet a girl like her. But despite that, I feel anxious about losing her. Why? No reason other than my biology itself.

Having said that, now that I've pondered this for a while, this idea is not necessarily exclusive with your experiance. It's very possible that like you said, even though the anxiety is present, it diminishes much faster because you've been through this experience many times before. It's a form of desensitization.

And now that I think about it, yeah...I remember the very first girl I met who I really liked. I went on a 1.5 hour date with her, and when it didn't work out, I was depressed for a full two weeks. And even before I found out she wasn't into me, my anxiety was probably around a 9. Now, when I meet a girl I really like, I'm over her in two or three days, and my anxiety when I'm separated from her sits at around a 6 or 7. Thank you for helping me realize that

As for psychologists, well, I'm going to be honest - I'm not the biggest fan. They think they made progress with P-values and making it "scientific" (which is impossible without hard metrics - if it's any softer than biology, it probably isn't science)

No worries dude! You're not alone in thinking Psychology is a bunch of BS. This is a whole separate can of worms, but what I can say is that epistemically speaking, the same argument can be made for even the hardest of sciences. All sciences assume that nature is uniform (Hume has a lot to say about that). Which is not a well-defended claim. Furthermore, even if we assume nature is uniform, even hard sciences are nothing but a bunch of statistics. All they say is that there's a 99.999999999....% chance that their claims are true. But that's still not 100%. Ergo, there's no proof that the claims tehy make are empirically true. So technically speaking, the same argument most would use against Psych (that there are few or no empirically measurable items) can be made for all of science.

Admittedly, bringing Philosophical concepts into this debate is probably just me being a smartass. So, for practical purposes you're right, hard sciences are a lot more reliable than Psychology. But dismissing it outright is also a little bit of a stretch. Mainly because it's been successfully applied to so many areas of life. In fact, it's often used on this site very site. I mean...what is "inner game" but using Psychology to change the inner workings of your mind to become more effective with women?

the girl who you're meeting for a third date was just on Spring Break...have you fucked her yet? Here's something to chew on that will actually hurt at first, but help you in the long run - she probably got dicked up at least once while on spring break.

Possible, but not likely. Last time I saw her, she was a virgin. And she's definitely not lieing. I was her first real date other than some dude she went to HS homecoming with as a platonic friend. For the first 10 minutes, she stumbled over all her words cause she was so nervous. She's literally the worse kisser and gives the worse Bj's out of anyone I've ever met (and she's always asking me for coaching and if "she's doing it right"). When I tried to finger her, I got only about 1/4 of my finger in before it started hurting her (eating her out worked just fine! . And apparently, she doesn't really know any guys nor does she have a social circle in her home town.

 

[Hector Papi Castillo]

Bboy,

I guess my point was don't look at attachment as a binary thing. Attachment doesn't disappear until you are Enlightened, if you accept that such a thing is possible. If not, then it never ends and is always on a spectrum. But until that day comes, it's a spectrum. What you should be aiming is not to kill attachment, but reduce its strength. Your attachment and the anxiety of it will diminish as your abundance and the counter-arguments your mind creates to combat anxiety mature.

And now that I think about it, yeah...I remember the very first girl I met who I really liked. I went on a 1.5 hour date with her, and when it didn't work out, I was depressed for a full two weeks. And even before I found out she wasn't into me, my anxiety was probably around a 9. Now, when I meet a girl I really like, I'm over her in two or three days, and my anxiety when I'm separated from her sits at around a 6 or 7. Thank you for helping me realize that

There we go. That's pretty much what I was trying to convey. Keep studying, meditating, and progressing with women, and your immediate anxiety-number with most girls will go down drastically and even if it does start at a 9, like with girls you really love, it will go down faster and faster and faster.

Just keep lifting. Further. That's the best advice I have I have many counter-arguments for anxiety for my own personality, but you have predispositions that might not react well to my particular strategies, so just keep going further. Don't stop; don't get caught in ANY paradigm. Keep going. As soon as you feel like a boss and that you're over your previous paradigm with women, enjoy it, then realize that's a temporary state and keep pushing.

All anxiety is an illusion. As is pride...or any emotional state whatsoever. If it's not permanent, it's not the end.

No worries dude! You're not alone in thinking Psychology is a bunch of BS. This is a whole separate can of worms, but what I can say is that epistemically speaking, the same argument can be made for even the hardest of sciences. All sciences assume that nature is uniform (Hume has a lot to say about that). Which is not a well-defended claim. Furthermore, even if we assume nature is uniform, even hard sciences are nothing but a bunch of statistics. All they say is that there's a 99.999999999....% chance that their claims are true. But that's still not 100%. Ergo, there's no proof that the claims tehy make are empirically true. So technically speaking, the same argument most would use against Psych (that there are few or no empirically measurable items) can be made for all of science.

Admittedly, bringing Philosophical concepts into this debate is probably just me being a smartass. So, for practical purposes you're right, hard sciences are a lot more reliable than Psychology. But dismissing it outright is also a little bit of a stretch. Mainly because it's been successfully applied to so many areas of life. In fact, it's often used on this site very site. I mean...what is "inner game" but using Psychology to change the inner workings of your mind to become more effective with women?

Good man!!! Hume's Problem of Induction will never, ever be solved, because it is the Excaliber of refutations to science. And yes, even physics, the strongest of all sciences, relies upon the Sigma-statistical model.

Though if we want to be rigorous, physics has STRONGER inductions than Psychology (and induction is about strength, not entailment, like with deduction), which is what I wanted to delineate. Physics is as scientific as science can get, but yes, science ultimately fails! You're right!

If you really want to fuck not only science, but any rationalist thought right in the ass, Kant has an answer: the Critique of Pure Reason. If pure reason (i.e., deduction) is inherently incapable of finding the unconditional (he uses The Good as the signifier for this, but Nirvana/Moksha/Brahaman are equal substitutes, by their definitions), then anything weaker than it is obviously doomed to fail as well - meaning induction and deduction are, ultimately, rotten husks of absolute bullshit (which also means mathematics dies, too, so Descartes was wrong . But he was spot on with his Cogito Ergo Sum).

What's the answer then, when thought is ultimately incapable of reaching Truth?

KATSU (think of a Zen master smacking the floor)

Okay okay, I got distracted again...murgh...

If by psychology, you mean watching thoughts, deconstructing thoughts, playing around with different thoughts, and then seeing their results, then we have no disagreement at all whatsoever. THAT is the answer. I guess what I'm saying is don't over-scholasticize (OH MY GOD IS THAT A WORD?) the process. Yes, inner-game is psychology but the moment we start citing any authority other than ourselves and what we have personally experienced, it's likely to be fraudulent.

My main point here is that if you discount mysticism from your psychological practices, you're doing yourself a great disservice. Because I've personally touched these states and can verify them, if you take my word for it;P And don't hide from practices that might seem extreme or unhealthy/dangerous by most psychologists (for instance, approach addiction might seem crazy by most professionals, but I am so fucking free now that i pushed through it; it's insane how liberated I am. I walk around with little to no anxiety now).

Basically, if it works and diminishes anxiety, then that is the only metric you ever need. No paper has to be published with any statistical information to verify its veracity. Ahh yes okay, that's what my silly mind was trying to say - you are the main authority. Just keep an open mind and don't restrict yourself to the hard materialism of the current obsession with science.

Possible, but not likely. Last time I saw her, she was a virgin. And she's definitely not lieing. I was her first real date other than some dude she went to HS homecoming with as a platonic friend. For the first 10 minutes, she stumbled over all her words cause she was so nervous. And she's literally the worse kisser I've ever met (and she's always asking me for coaching and if "she's doing it right"). And when I tried to finger her, I got only about 1/4 of my finger in before it started hurting her (eating her out worked just fine! . And apparently, she doesn't really know any guys nor does she have a social circle in her home town.

Hmm....where'd she go for Spring Break?

Also, do you see what I was trying to do by raising the possibility that she got frisky at Spring Break?

Hector

 

[Grand Pooba]

Show me a guy with a life mission, and he'll trump MOST guys with girls, but show me a guy who has dedicated many, many years to the art of seduction and ALSO has a life-mission, and I'll show you a true fucking Titan.

Bingo! This is it in a nutshell - if you only have one of these you'll feel incomplete. The key is to develop and have both - the actual skills to bring women into your life consistently and achieve absolute abundance, and also a mission for all of your life which women can also be part of.

. Life-mission is nothing more than passion (attractiveness/aggression) + skill-building (trasnferable to all other skills) + focus (i.e., NOT too focused on bitches). It's great and invaluable to become a monster-pussy-magnet, but it doesn't in and of itself teach you how women think, how to pull, etc.

This will make you attractive to women but you won't actually know how to do anything with their interest, until you learn.

Yeah. This is probably helpful. I actually suggested this to my counselor, and he thought it would probably be helpful as well. Although, he believes the anxiety itself won't be gone. Rather, I could just distract myself from it enough so that it's not consuming my thoughts. The problem is, for the past 3 or 4 years or so I've felt kind of purposeless. In high school, I actually had more purpose than I do now. I was a big time Wrestler. Schoolwork+Wrestling was literally my life. But for various reasons, that didn't pan out for me, and I haven't really found anything like it since. I know that once I get my Psyd, my career will probably give me more purpose because it's something I can really sink my teeth into. But the schoolwork required to get there fells like just that...work. Not much passion involved in sticking my nose in textbooks all day haha.

I think you have self identified the issue. You're on here learning and posting and so I assume you're getting better with women and are committed, but as you say your life is devoid of purpose, this makes you more susceptible to such obsessions with a woman.

Now one note, though Hector has already covered this well. Feelings are a VERY GOOD thing to have around a woman, one you like, want, and desire. Too many men run away from feelings but women want a man who feels for them and desires them. And in this journey we do get our hearts ripped out sometimes but that's just part of it. Don't fear feeling for a girl - embrace it.

 

[Bboy100]

If you really want to fuck not only science, but any rationalist thought right in the ass, Kant has an answer: the Critique of Pure Reason. If pure reason (i.e., deduction) is inherently incapable of finding the unconditional (he uses The Good as the signifier for this, but Nirvana/Moksha/Brahaman are equal substitutes, by their definitions), then anything weaker than it is obviously doomed to fail as well - meaning induction and deduction are, ultimately, rotten husks of absolute bullshit (which also means mathematics dies, too, so Descartes was wrong . But he was spot on with his Cogito Ergo Sum).

What's the answer then, when thought is ultimately incapable of reaching Truth?

KATSU (think of a Zen master smacking the floor)

Yeah, I totally agree. But tbh, the Critique of Pure Reason was pretty messy for me. Mainly because I have trouble accepting that there is any truth to any type of religion whatsoever. And Kant tries to invoke the concept as god for the groundwork of anything and everything else we know (other than what we learned via the Cogito) pretty early on. Which I can't buy into. So from a Philosphical standpoint, I'm more or less left being a skeptic.

I lost you at KATSU though. I've never heard of him haha.

f by psychology, you mean watching thoughts, deconstructing thoughts, playing around with different thoughts, and then seeing their results, then we have no disagreement at all whatsoever. THAT is the answer. I guess what I'm saying is don't over-scholasticize (OH MY GOD IS THAT A WORD?) the process. Yes, inner-game is psychology but the moment we start citing any authority other than ourselves and what we have personally experienced, it's likely to be fraudulent.

Why is that? Obviously yeah, if you find a process that works for you, by all means go for it and fuck what anyone else tells you. But that doesn't necessarily mean standardized methods constructed via research don't work. If Therapy was a useless practice, it would have died a long time ago. There's loads and loads of research which shows that therapy (and all the psychological concepts it invokes) has helped a lot of people.

Not to mention Psychology is used in so many other fields:
-Sales
-Sports
-Motivational Speaking
-Teaching
-Learning to build and maintain relationships (e.g. Chase sites plenty of Psychology in his articles)
- Criminal Justice
-Buisness
...and so on. Pretty much any discipline which involves interacting with other humans or modifying behavior will usually have an element of applied Psych.

Hmm....where'd she go for Spring Break?

Also, do you see what I was trying to do by raising the possibility that she got frisky at Spring Break?

She went back to her hometown with her parents. I've personally never been there, but its a pretty small city and she said there isn't too much to do there.

But yeah...I get what you're saying. I'm taking way too long to close. If she was more socially connected, there's a good chance I would have lost her over the break. You're totally right about that. And if I'm being honest with myself, I probably could've fucked her last time I saw her. Despite the fact that she was still saying she "wasn't ready" we had all our clothes off and my dick was literally rubbing against her pussy and she was ok with it. But I guess I hesitated because she's a virgin. At this point, I've heard 1 million stories of girls having a bad first time. I just don't want that to happen on my watch. But yeah that was a pretty careless mistake on my part. Especially since I knew we would spend two weeks apart. I've already decided that I'm going to be a little more persistent about sealing the deal tomorrow.

I think you have self identified the issue. You're on here learning and posting and so I assume you're getting better with women and are committed, but as you say your life is devoid of purpose, this makes you more susceptible to such obsessions with a woman.

Yeah. Finding purpose in life at this point seems kind of self-defeating. Because if I do find something that I seriously care about, I could probably (potentially) make it into a career. Which would in turn, defeat the purpose of going to school in the first place. So as long as there's still a need to go to school, it seems that it's very unlikely that I'll find something I'm truly passionate about.

And for the record, I'm not saying that to make excuses. I'm definitely going to continue searching. I know others have done it before me and that feeding you guys bullshit about how "it's impossible to have a well defined life-purpose in college" hurts no one except me. I'm only mentioning this to put on paper (and to let you guys know) where I'm at right now.

 

[Hector Papi Castillo]

Yeah, I totally agree. But tbh, the Critique of Pure Reason was pretty messy for me. Mainly because I have trouble accepting that there is any truth to any type of religion whatsoever. And Kant tries to invoke the concept as god for the groundwork of anything and everything else we know (other than what we learned via the Cogito) pretty early on. Which I can't buy into. So from a Philosphical standpoint, I'm more or less left being a skeptic.

I lost you at KATSU though. I've never heard of him haha.

The word "God" has gotten a bad rap in recent decades. That's why I offered different words in my previous posts - Nirvana, Brahman, etc. But the religious connotations, I understand, do lead one astray if they haven't studied religion. It's like me saying the Empty Set in Set Theory. Not many people know what it is, but the Empty Set is in EVERY set in Set Theory, and Set Theory is the foundation of mathematics. It is always there. So when someone says "God" or any other term for the Ultimate, it simply means The Unconditional. The Unconditional means, by definition, that it was not conditioned. That which isn't conditioned is not created. that which isn't created cannot have a beginning, because it is always there, always will be (like the Empty Set!). It also cannot have an end (death), either. Since the only thing that can end is that which has a beginning.

So when Kant says The Good or God, he just means the Unconditional (and I believe he uses that word, the unconditional in the work; need to crack it open).

If you want a non-religious viewpoint, try Godel. His Incompleteness Theorems demonstrate how any formal axiomatic system (e.g., mathematics) in an attempt beyond a certain expressive power, cannot be both complete and consistent. If mathematics as we know it cannot give answers to every problem within itself (i.e., mathematics can't solve all the problems of mathematics), then anything less rigorous will fail to do so.

So if we blow the foundations on the strongest system we have (logic and mathematics), then everything else is equally suspect or even more so.

Katsu is the Zen shout that Zen masters use to answer koans (paradoxical riddles). The whole point is that when a Zen master asks something like "what is the sound of one hand clapping," you're SUPPOSED to get so infuruiated with the impossible answer that you just smack the floor or shout. It's meant to demonstrate how you can never verbalize ultimate reality and by smacking the floor or shouting, you are pointing at reality as it is now as the only reality.....uh here

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" - Ludwig Wittgenstein

Like that. Being quiet, smacking the floor, or shouting Katsu (it's a japanese word) is the reaction to the impossibility of answering a paradox. Mathematicians, scientists, logicians, philosophers, etc like to think that one day they'll come up with the answer (e.g., The Theory of Everything), but that day will never come. Ever. You can't verbalize reality. You can draw certain relations through observations and experiments (e.g., we notice that the constant speed of gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 because we do the algebra with the time it takes for an object to fall a certain distance and have eliminated mass as relevant to such a relation), but you can't contain everything in an equation, system, book, theory, or anything else, no matter what. It will never be "finished." Reality is already reality and is as complete as it ever will be.

All of our fields of study are just creative efforts to play around with that Reality. But reality, in its entirety, will always be a mystery.

Why is that? Obviously yeah, if you find a process that works for you, by all means go for it and fuck what anyone else tells you. But that doesn't necessarily mean standardized methods constructed via research don't work. If Therapy was a useless practice, it would have died a long time ago. There's loads and loads of research which shows that therapy (and all the psychological concepts it invokes) has helped a lot of people.

Yes yes, if it works, it works! So if formalized methods found in fields like positive psychology, etc help you, then do them! But they operate from a different fundamental goal then me. If I recall correctly, and do correct me if I'm wrong, the goal of psychology is something like "pro-social behavior" right? Well, that's not what I'm going for. Winston Churchill was manic/depressive and an insane alcoholic, but I know, being manic/depressive myself, that he wouldn't have achieved what he did WITHOUT the motivation that comes from his manic periods. But what psychologist/therapist would suggest you use your bipolar behavior as fuel for achievement? They allowed him to self-medicate with alcohol, because, well, he's Winston fucking Churchill and nobody tells that dude what to do, but if he was some jo-schmo, they'd dope him up on drugs and tell him to chill out.

I don't come from that perspective. I don't see pro-social behavior as the goal. I either see extreme achievement like world conquering as the goal, or Enlightenment. Be a Buddha or be a Chakravartan (world conquerer). Anything else is complacent sissy bullshit for me. But i"m an extreme dude, so take that into account and I'm by no means saying that you should follow my path or accept my premises You're a smart dude and will find the best path for you!!! That's why I said "do what works." That means whatever your goal is, whatever brings you there, do it. For me, most findings in psychology are cool and informational, especially behavioral psychology, but I'm going to trust my experience more. Perhaps that's fallacious but eh...

Maybe psychology as an umbrella term is the wrong thing to attack. For instance, I'm a huge fan of Jung. Modern psychologists acknowledge his historical importance, but pretty much say "none of what he did is really verifiable," because a lot of what he did involved deep introspection and mystical experiences like climbing down a house in his imagination through all the ages of mankind to find the clump of dirt that he called the "Self." He was also willing to accept the premises of Buddhism and other religions and apply them into his psychology. Though he was aware of the boundaries of his science; he knew psychology, in and of itself, can only do so much

Psychology to me is an honest science that recognises its own boundaries, and I am not a philosopher or theologian who believes in his ability to step beyond the epistemological barrier. Science is made by man, which does not mean that there are not occasionally acts of grace permitting transgression into realms beyond - Psychology and Western Religion, p. 260

So in as far as psychology acknowledges its domain of efficacy, i.e., what it can and can't measure, I accept its utility. But for my own personal goals, I need something that pushes beyond those boundaries, which is why I'm drawn to mysticism/philosophy/religion.

This is a fascinating discussion, Bboy. Thank you for engaging in this with me so candidly

She went back to her hometown with her parents. I've personally never been there, but its a pretty small city and she said there isn't too much to do there.

But yeah...I get what you're saying. I'm taking way too long to close. If she was more socially connected, there's a good chance I would have lost her over the break. You're totally right about that. And if I'm being honest with myself, I probably could've fucked her last time I saw her. Despite the fact that she was still saying she "wasn't ready" we had all our clothes off and my dick was literally rubbing against her pussy and she was ok with it. But I guess I hesitated because she's a virgin. At this point, I've heard 1 million stories of girls having a bad first time. I just don't want that to happen on my watch. But yeah that was a pretty careless mistake on my part. Especially since I knew we would spend two weeks apart. I've already decided that I'm going to be a little more persistent about sealing the deal tomorrow.

OH OK. well, when you said "Spring Break," you can imagine what my assumptions were. Yeah, she probably didn't get dicked up then

As for giving a girl a bad first time, it'll happen. I did it with a girl who I was absolutely in love with and it really hurt my chances of converting her into a girlfriend. I blew it in many other ways, but the bad sex was a cornerstone of that failure (she was way too tight and we had to stop). Just do it, regardless. Even if you do fuck it up, you at least were "her first."

Yeah man, you need to seal it meow. Virgins allow a lot more leeway, but once that can is popped...all bets are off.

hekky

EDIT:

‘Psychiatry has been charged with gross materialism. And quite rightly, for it is on the road to putting the organ, the instrument, above the function – or rather, it has long been doing so. Function has become the appendage of its organ, the psyche an appendage to the brain. In modern psychiatry the psyche has come off very badly. While intense progress has been made in cerebral anatomy, we know practically nothing about the psyche, or even less than we did before. Modern psychiatry behaves like someone who thinks he can decipher the meaning and purpose of a building by a mineralogical analysis of its stones.’ - The Psychogenesis of Mental Disease, Carl Jung

THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY!! GO JUNG!

 

[Bete Noire]

Damn this discussion is awesome, I can't say that I follow everything but it sounds like by what your saying that mysticism/ religion has merit? I've always been, like many, a sceptic when it comes to the idea of God and creation but if you could send a book title my way i'll be sure to check it out.

You also wrote a short bit about enlightenment and 'world conqueror' goals being the pinnacle of achievement. I have however always wondered what enlightenment acutally means? Is it different for every being and is there actually a set boundary to achieve such a thing? When I first got into meditation it was all over the videos that I was watching but I wonder why people value 'it' so much if you are currently comfortable with ones mental state.

I'll re-read through this post once again, I've always been into psychology to the point of shortlisting it as a degree choice but if it wont fully give me the low down on human behavior and 'why we do what we do', I might switch it up with another major.

Cheers for thought provoking discussion BBoy and Anatman.

 

[Bboy100]

The word "God" has gotten a bad rap in recent decades. That's why I offered different words in my previous posts - Nirvana, Brahman, etc. But the religious connotations, I understand, do lead one astray if they haven't studied religion. It's like me saying the Empty Set in Set Theory. Not many people know what it is, but the Empty Set is in EVERY set in Set Theory, and Set Theory is the foundation of mathematics. It is always there. So when someone says "God" or any other term for the Ultimate, it simply means The Unconditional. The Unconditional means, by definition, that it was not conditioned. That which isn't conditioned is not created. that which isn't created cannot have a beginning, because it is always there, always will be (like the Empty Set!). It also cannot have an end (death), either. Since the only thing that can end is that which has a beginning.

So when Kant says The Good or God, he just means the Unconditional (and I believe he uses that word, the unconditional in the work; need to crack it open).

If you want a non-religious viewpoint, try Godel. His Incompleteness Theorems demonstrate how any formal axiomatic system (e.g., mathematics) in an attempt beyond a certain expressive power, cannot be both complete and consistent. If mathematics as we know it cannot give answers to every problem within itself (i.e., mathematics can't solve all the problems of mathematics), then anything less rigorous will fail to do so.

So if we blow the foundations on the strongest system we have (logic and mathematics), then everything else is equally suspect or even more so.

This is really fuckin cool. I don't think I had it presented to me this way. If it was worded like this in his book, I might have missed it. But I believe in class, it was always discussed as god instead of as the unconditional. But yeah, with this model, it becomes a lot easier for me to accept the rest of his arguments. Thanks for showing me this!

If I recall correctly, and do correct me if I'm wrong, the goal of psychology is something like "pro-social behavior" right?

To be honest, i've mostly been studying Philosophy for the past two years. It's been a while since I've taken a formal Psych class. I'm actually going to be moving onto studying Psychology soon. But not there yet. Having said that, based on my very limited formal education on the topic, I don't recall anything like this.

I don't think Psychology itself has a goal. It's just like any other sciences. Its goal is to gather information.

As for applied Psychology...that's a different story. We can apply Psychology however we like. As noted in my previous post, it's used for various purposes in a variety of different domains. I think maybe your question is "what is the purpose of clinical psychology (i.e. therapy)? If this is the case, then I would say it's whatever you and your therapist(s) decide the goal to be. In my experience, the first time you meet them they'll literally ask you "what do you want out of therapy" and they'll do their best to help you achieve that goal. They don't have a preset agenda. And if they're good at their job, they'll avoid trying force their values and beliefs upon you. They'll simply use what they know about Psychology to steer you in the right direction.

I don't come from that perspective. I don't see pro-social behavior as the goal. I either see extreme achievement like world conquering as the goal, or Enlightenment. Be a Buddha or be a Chakravartan (world conquerer). Anything else is complacent sissy bullshit for me.

Ahh, so if I'm understanding you correctly, you dislike Psychology because
1. It promotes good mental health as an end goal, which is not compatible with your methodology for achieving your goals in life
2. It doesn't give us the answer to everything.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Let me know if I am.

But if this is your line of reasoning, I'll agree with you that it is technically true. But it has some problems.

I get how using your mania might work as great motivation to achieve your goals in life. But it leaves us with a huge question...why are those end goals so important to you? I ask this because most people do what they do in life to achieve fulfillment and happiness. If they don't have that, that's usually their first priority (admittedly, 90% of the population goes about doing this the wrong way, so they often never actually get there). In your case, it seems that fulfillment and happiness is NOT your first priority. Rather, you value achievement above all else (I say this because regardless of how great you become, your life satisfaction will still be lower than if you didn't have mania/depression). If this is true, then I guess this makes sense. But I don't understand why you would want this. I mean...sure, you might be a King one day. But what's the point if your overall life satisfaction is lower than it otherwise would be?

And I'm not saying achievement and greatness are unimportant and that they shouldn't be pursued. But it just seems to be that as long as your taking care of your basic shit, happiness and fulfillment should come first. Once you have that, you can pursue greatness from a position of positivity and strength. Not from a position of fear or some other negative emotion.

Note: I'm not trying to force my values and beliefs upon you. In fact, I don't know that I'm necessarily right. I'm just bringing this up as part of our debate because i'm actually genuinely curious about your thought process here. There might be something I'm not seeing.

And I'm not just making this up. I have personal experience. Like I said, I was a Wrestler in high school. My motivation for being as good as I was was my negative self-talk after every loss. I would literally think things like:

"Damn. You lost. That guy guy made you his bitch. Like seriously, he's the same weight as you, and you can't even get up off the ground? That's pathetic. You're weak and worthless. Seriously, dad should've pulled out"

This would go on for hours. Needless to say, I quit losing (mostly) REAL fast. But that didn't matter. Cause I was still miserable AF.

Tucker Max is another great example of this. He had everything. He got famous. Fucked more girls than he remembers, wrote a bunch of bestselling books, got rich. And still, he was fucking miserable. Why? Because mentally, he didn't have his shit sorted out. It wasn't until 4 years of Psychotherapy that he started to actually enjoy his life. If you're curious about this, check this article out if you haven't already seen it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelells ... 26478102c8


As for Psychology not giving us the answer to everything. Yeah, that's also true. Like all sciences and everything else in life, it has its limitations. But that doesn't mean it brings NO value and that it should be ignored. Sure, if Mysticism/Philosophy help you achieve your goals, by all means go for it. Hell, I would encourage everyone to study at least some Philosophy throughout their lifetime regardless of what they're trying to accomplish. But I think Psychology can probably bring at least some benefits to you as well.

This is a fascinating discussion, Bboy. Thank you for engaging in this with me so candidly

My pleasure I'm learning a lot from it

 

[Rusty]

I agree on many of Bboy's points about psychology.

It certainly isn't a science that gets the kind of clout and respect that other fields of science get, but there are so many studies, principles, and concepts that I've applied to my own life that have produced huge dividends and shifted many of my mindsets and outlook on life. It helped me battle long episodes of depression, turn around negative self-talk, and overall helped me to be a more socially savvy and empathetic person.

I also believe that psychology has such a huge role in seduction. Most guys that I've brushed shoulders with, became friends with, worked together are not aware. They're in the dark. They might be intelligent, hard working guys, but that lack of social awareness and understanding of basic psychological principles handicaps their ability to be better with women and people in general. I know a lot can be intuitive and learned from trial and error through experience, but understanding the "why" and the "how" really solidifies the principle behind what happens during my interactions with women, even if it can't give me all the answers.

Most of the relationships I see the men around me get into are by sheer luck and proximity; they're often bickering and arguing and dealing with lots of drama, and instead of being able to analyze and understand how their women are behaving and identifying that a number of these women are bat shit crazy (disorders/psychosis), they just chalk it up to "Women are crazy" and rationalize away their problems instead of screening better and understanding how women work.