Parallels between Evolutionary Psychology, Carl Jung and Girlschase Advice

[Alchemist]

Chase has written that being the joker before you can be the king is necessary and important. At the time I thought it was a neat and interesting idea, nothing more. It was eye-opening to see that this transformation has been analyzed in the past by Carl Jung. There is a huge source of literature on it. And it's refereed to as concept of the circumambulation of the self.

---------------------

With respect to having a mission, Chase said this:

One of the funniest things you will discover is that women want to be ignored by a man, so long as their overall needs are being met and they can tell that you are confident in your ignoring of them to go pursue your mission.

This mission does not even have to be one that she fully understands, or endorses, though some understanding of your overarching goals and why you must accomplish them is useful for keeping her on board with them.

For instance, if you are running a new business or working a demanding job as a police officer or investment banker or military man deployed overseas and it’s taking up a lot of your time and you can’t be with her that much, if she knows that that is part of the plan and you are using this as a stepping stone to get somewhere even greater, almost every woman will support this wholeheartedly and be thrilled to be with such an ambitious man if your ambitions are sufficiently large enough for her.

And this is also an amazing observation, backed by scientific research that was never published. Jordan Peterson talks about it in his lecture, but the video is cut too short before he can explain the findings. Thankfully, a commentor who has watched all of his videos lets us know that he had explained the findings in another video. Here they are:

I remember it from another lecture. It's about how women select for male mates. Essentially, the men can be divided into four groups. A guy who is nowhere, and is going nowhere. A guy who is nowhere, but is going somewhere. A guy who is already somewhere, but is going nowhere. A guy who is somewhere, and is going somewhere more. The point is that women don't care about where you are now, whether you have means or not. They only selected for men who had the POTENTIAL of going somewhere. Even the guy with means, but no drive was partially ignored.


My added thoughts are that the environment of the study affects the outcome, and there are no ways around this, so it is not entirely accurate. If women are selecting for a stable mate, then they will pick the man with potential. Given the structural aspect of the study, this automatically thrusts a more long term view onto the woman's method of choice. A short term choice doesn't enter the mind. The reality is in the real world, the woman is analyzing the man with competing short term and long term analysis' and it's not always clear she will pick the guy with potential. She might make a choice informed by short term analysis.


In my view, short term analysis WOULD lead to making decisions based on PRESENT circumstances, not future potential. This is why pick up artistry does work, women selecting for the short term would select for status and means, at present (but no one is "fooled". she's picking what she wants at the moment). However, I have seen the opposite response from women. Men with means are selected for long term relationships, while party types are selected for short term gratification. Regardless, the truth is crushing for men. What matters is status position, and even if women do ultimately select for future potential, it is still informed by the dominant male attractor, high social position.


Ahhh now. The reason all of these relationship studies are kind of not effective at identifying "the mysteries of female attraction," is that sometimes they can come from a small place [not this study, in general, see PUA]. The temptation to uncover the "secrets" and then maybe use them yourself is a classic example of "curiositas." Somethings are best left unknown. The reality of dependency is much more apparent for women than man, for obvious physical reasons. The illusion of independence is harder to break with men, so attraction standards for men are much more objective, heavily informed by physical bodily characteristics, and can lead to more objectification. The real truth is simple connection is the most important factor for everyone for a multitude of issues related to being, but especially women because a strong bond means he won't leave, and that's the biggest fear.

Maybe it's just my analytical mind having a braingasm, but seeing so many parallels and corroborating evidence is immensely pleasurable. I'm also aware of the possibility that confirmation bias might have a role in it. I'd like to hear what others have to say about this.

 

[Richard]

It's human nature to look for some kind of purpose or some kind of model of constructing and seeing the world; most people's "models" are created unconsciously and most people live their lives never realizing they have a choice to be mindful or self-aware. It takes a particular kind of person to embrace their personal freedom, to that degree.

Anyway, it sounds like you're open and that you're looking for a personally meaningful world model so you drawing parallels between GC, Psychology, Jung, etc. is perfectly normal. It's really only a confirmation bias when you're ignoring all refuting evidence instead of being open to it and understanding it. I'm an existential thinker and psychologist, and an atheist who follows Eastern philosophy but I'm not ignorant to Christianity, etc. so my "world" view is not one rooted in confirmation biases.

To make a long story short - what you're doing and the parallels you're noticing are perfectly normal and healthy. Just keep diving in until something lights a fire in your belly

-Richard

 

[Regal Tiger]

And report back when you find gems like this! Thanks for reporting, definitely a great read that I'm excited to dig into a little more