Your Favorite Girl

[moom]

Anyone deal with a situation like this before?

Seeing 3 girls, phenomenal sex with all 3. Got 1 favorite from the 3, I like her and desire her much more than the other 2.

Yet, I’m so free with the other 2, so much more myself because I give less a fuck.

With my favorite, I feel so much more uptight. I’m careful about how long to take to text back, monitoring how much attention I should show her, watching my moves to not look too much like some overly affectionate bitch.

Whats up with this? How do i tone it down and get the same sort of ease that i have with the other 2? mind hacks? lol

 

[climbingup]

You might do this already but do you meditate?

Meditation helps me to be less attached to an outcome in all situations, maybe it will be what you are looking for?

 

[Alpha13SC]

I'm on the opposite spectrum, where girls told me that I'm very unnafectionate and I don't actually have a soul.

It's just my way of be, and actually I m trying to make some moves to build comfort sometimes, like kissing them on forehead and so on.

What keeps me that way is the self image(I m seeing myself as a very masculine person), and my activities(competitive sports, gym) which made me to harden up.

I don't know if this is the solution as well, but usually, when guys do activities that raises their T and makes them feel more powerful, they tend to be less empathetic. There's a connection between power and less empathy.

 

[DarkKnight]

There's a connection between power and less empathy.

Indeed. Although I believe a distinction should be made between empathizing because you relate to someone else because you too are/were in a down position OR because you are empathic because you have a higher understanding of humans which increases leadership skills and thus power.

I tend to notice, and this may be age, that I have a better read on people and what ails them, which in turn helps me direct them better. Seems I have become the father/big brother figure as well.

I mean here on girlschase we learn how to manage attainability, which keeps being an art on itself and requires quite the calibration (I too err on the aloof side of the spectrum).

 

[DarkKnight]

Whats up with this? How do i tone it down and get the same sort of ease that i have with the other 2? mind hacks

Its obvious you over value this one chick and slide into one itis land despite your options. You need to make her less special, find faults with her , to tone this behavior a bit down. See the human in her, right now she is on a pedestal that much is clear. Which on itself is unrealistic.

 

[Will_V]

Anyone deal with a situation like this before?

Seeing 3 girls, phenomenal sex with all 3. Got 1 favorite from the 3, I like her and desire her much more than the other 2.

Yet, I’m so free with the other 2, so much more myself because I give less a fuck.

With my favorite, I feel so much more uptight. I’m careful about how long to take to text back, monitoring how much attention I should show her, watching my moves to not look too much like some overly affectionate bitch.

Whats up with this? How do i tone it down and get the same sort of ease that i have with the other 2? mind hacks? lol

It's normal IMO. You simply value this girl more than the others, and possibly she's actually good at women's game too, i.e., getting a man invested.

One of the best things to do in this situation is to evaluate this girl right now as a monogamous girlfriend. That way, if ever she manages to get you really invested and asking yourself all kinds of silly questions, you've already considered it when things were still pretty fresh.

Personally, I'm not the sort of guy to disinvest myself of feelings to maintain control. I prefer to feel everything and have enough self control to make the best choice anyway. After a while, when you know yourself well enough and make enough mistakes, you get to know whether feelings of attachment come from a negative or positive place, and all that remains is to do what you know you need to, regardless.

 

[Will_V]

There's a connection between power and less empathy.

I don't believe it's so cut and dried. I'm a very empathetic person, I find it very easy to read people and understand how they think and feel. I believe it does influence my personality - I tend to be an idealist, and growing up I found it difficult to maintain good relationships with other people, in some ways because I judged them too much, and in other ways because I judged them not enough. But in the end I cannot say that it was empathy as such that determined the level of control I had in my relationships.

For instance, when I began to see my mistakes and troubles as things that I alone could and should correct, when I saw other people in the same situation, who wished to use their situation as a means to excuse themselves of certain behaviours, I judged them as harshly as I would myself. And other people watching on, who I cared about, looked at me and told me in choked voices 'you just don't care do you!'. Yet when I did not back down, they still respected me the day after.

The difference between a 'nice guy' and a well-developed empathetic man is that the latter is in control of himself and has his decided agenda, his ethics, rules and boundaries clearly developed, and he uses his empathy and emotions as a means of bonding and self-expression rather than a handle for others to control him by. This is because most people, regardless of their level of empathy, are not in control of anything, least of all their own emotions.

The way I look at it, what makes a person dominant socially is not whether they have too much or too little empathy, but how much impetus drives their words and actions, that is to say, how much resistance it would appear to require to oppose them. Lower empathy does correlate with this, but in that case it's not so much the lack of empathy as the lack of the emotional bridge that one might use to enter and influence their mind. But if one finds that bridge waiting, and crosses it at will, but cannot open the gate on the other side, the result is the same.

 

[trashKENNUT]

@Chase

Are you sure you are not WILL V?

It's 2022. Not surprised by anything!

 

[Alpha13SC]

I don't believe it's so cut and dried.

Regarding the sentence you quoted me, of course, there is more to discuss, and it's not entirely science. Or it could be?

I think you heard of The Standford Experiment, as a clinical study, where people charged with power showed less and less empathy towards the others. I can recommend the movie from 2015, The Standford Prison Experiment, tho there are others, with better actors. I think it just exaggerate the potential of their capacity of empathy(or lack of it).

But this is taken out of context, purely for discussion.

For instance, when I began to see my mistakes and troubles as things that I alone could and should correct, when I saw other people in the same situation, who wished to use their situation as a means to excuse themselves of certain behaviours, I judged them as harshly as I would myself. And other people watching on, who I cared about, looked at me and told me in choked voices 'you just don't care do you!'. Yet when I did not back down, they still respected me the day after.

I tend to do it as well, and in my mind be like "you're such a pussy". With time, I understand that I can't ask for everybody to be like me or to have the same ambition. But I can lead by example and to the hard things by myself. And what I was doing was actually judging a part of them who I hated seeing in me. And I still do it. But this contradicts with a saying I m trying to respect as much as I can "Focus on what you want, not what you don't want". I think it's better to do a certain, hard thing, because I want to do it, not because I would judge and criticize myself for not doing it. I m still experimenting with it.

The difference between a 'nice guy' and a well-developed empathetic man is that the latter is in control of himself and has his decided agenda, his ethics, rules and boundaries clearly developed, and he uses his empathy and emotions as a means of bonding and self-expression rather than a handle for others to control him by. This is because most people, regardless of their level of empathy, are not in control of anything, least of all their own emotions.

I agree. I also think this is already a man on another level, better than average, since not many people are trying to develop this side.
I also think there could some different levels of empathy. An emotional one, which may let you experiment what they're feeling, and an intellectual one, which does not imply so many emotions, but more like a creative exercise, answering to questions "how they re feeling", or "how would feel in their shoes?".

The way I look at it, what makes a person dominant socially is not whether they have too much or too little empathy, but how much impetus drives their words and actions, that is to say, how much resistance it would appear to require to oppose them. Lower empathy does correlate with this, but in that case it's not so much the lack of empathy as the lack of the emotional bridge that one might use to enter and influence their mind. But if one finds that bridge waiting, and crosses it at will, but cannot open the gate on the other side, the result is the same.

I think here you tried to see if the reciprocal is true, which I don't think it is, but usually it can help to exert dominant moves at your target, if it's the case.

 

[Will_V]

Regarding the sentence you quoted me, of course, there is more to discuss, and it's not entirely science. Or it could be?

I think you heard of The Standford Experiment, as a clinical study, where people charged with power showed less and less empathy towards the others. I can recommend the movie from 2015, The Standford Prison Experiment, tho there are others, with better actors. I think it just exaggerate the potential of their capacity of empathy(or lack of it).

But this is taken out of context, purely for discussion.

I think those experiments showed clearly that having a lot of power over powerless people tends to produce a lack of empathy. I've seen this discussed in many different historical contexts.

But the question is, does lack of empathy facilitate having control in personal relationships? I don't think so - as long as you separate empathy from emotional investment, and particularly from emotional control, as you alluded to further on in your post.

I tend to do it as well, and in my mind be like "you're such a pussy". With time, I understand that I can't ask for everybody to be like me or to have the same ambition. But I can lead by example and to the hard things by myself. And what I was doing was actually judging a part of them who I hated seeing in me. And I still do it. But this contradicts with a saying I m trying to respect as much as I can "Focus on what you want, not what you don't want". I think it's better to do a certain, hard thing, because I want to do it, not because I would judge and criticize myself for not doing it. I m still experimenting with it.

That's a good distinction. Being judgemental tends to produce anxiety and a sense of separation in others - except when you give someone a clear path to conformity with your wishes, and the motivation to move along it.

In this case, it's quite possible that the only real difference between the girl @moom feels apprehensive around, and the ones he feels completely at ease around, is that the first girl is slightly more judgemental of him, but accommodating enough to make him feel successful with her, or capable of being so.

I personally think that's a good thing - I am attracted to women who judge men and don't give their love and respect easily, in fact I think most men instinctively gravitate to this as something valuable, though few are capable of maintaining frame within it. When she's honest and capable of communicating her signals from a submissive frame (i.e. not being annoying and overbearing), a woman like that can produce some incredibly fast growth. There's nothing quite like the satisfaction of having a woman point out all your mistakes, fixing them, and then fucking her afterward.

I agree. I also think this is already a man on another level, better than average, since not many people are trying to develop this side.
I also think there could some different levels of empathy. An emotional one, which may let you experiment what they're feeling, and an intellectual one, which does not imply so many emotions, but more like a creative exercise, answering to questions "how they re feeling", or "how would feel in their shoes?".

Very true. Empathy is not the same as emotional investment, it's just that empathy without self-control tends to produce mirrored emotions that can be difficult to separate from one's own.

That said I think there's a bit of confusion in the way that the mainstream portrays people displaying low empathy. I think they are not actually unemotional, but their emotions are compressed and somewhat submerged under the surface of their conscious experience. But that's a bit off topic.

I think here you tried to see if the reciprocal is true, which I don't think it is, but usually it can help to exert dominant moves at your target, if it's the case.

What do you mean by the reciprocal here?

 

[Chase]

Just to weigh in real quick on the power vs. empathy thing --

There's also a study (I quoted it in Charisma in a Bottle) where they compared the empathy of employees for bosses vs. bosses for employees. The researchers went in thinking the empathy flow would flow from employees --> bosses, IIRC, expecting that employees need to try to predict what their bosses are thinking to give them what they want, while the bosses just order everyone around.

The finding was the opposite: bosses had far more empathy toward employees than employees had toward bosses. The bosses had to understand where each employee was at, how to use and motivate each, and so on. Meanwhile employees just had to follow orders and keep their manners up and do their work, etc.

Anecdotally this seems to be a general principle when you explode it out to social groups. Effective leaders need to have their fingers on the pulse of what the people want and need. Meanwhile the people are not trying to figure out "What is the leader's day-to-day life like? What are his wants and needs? What does he hope to see from me?"; they are just rallying around whatever leader provides what they want, rejecting any leader that doesn't.

I have been both a regular employee and a manager and a CEO, and I can tell you there is this expansion of empathy as you go up in responsibility. You aren't trying to get inside your boss's head too much as an underling (unless you're really Machiavellian or something I guess), but once you're managing people you really have to spend some time trying to figure out how to motivate the different personalities you're responsible for.

It happens on forums too. As a regular poster you aren't thinking too much about how the top guys are thinking. You might have some thoughts about it, but they're going to tend to be caricatures drawn from sweeping assumptions about them. But when you're one of the guy's running the place you need to be paying close attention to how everyone else is thinking, because if not, there will soon be a disconnect between the way you manage the forum and how the folks on the forum care to use it, and once that is the case you will start hearing about it from everybody.

Likewise, it's also typically normal that in romantic relationships, whoever the leader is is doing a better job empathizing with and understanding whoever the follower is. The follower may be more accommodating to the leader, but she is generally not as good at having a fully fleshed out mental model of how his mind works than he has hers.

It all comes back to that old saying "It's lonely at the top."

The reason it's lonely is because lower down, your peers understand you, and your superiors understand you.

As you go up, you have fewer and fewer peers, and possibly no superiors, and everyone beneath you is putting you on a pedestal or going the opposite way and demonizing you or viewing you as some sort of caricature of yourself. Just like in relationships... you get the girl complaining you "don't really understand her" over some little tiny thing, when you can just sit there and tell her all about herself and she will nod her head and say "You totally get it; you're right; yes, that's so right", meanwhile she is unable to do that for you.

Manosphere guys used to complain about women being solipsistic; the real, stark reality is that women are the followers in the relationship, and followers never understand leaders anywhere near as well as leaders understand followers. When you find those relationships where the man is whiny, feminine, and dependent, and the woman is masculine, domineering, and in-charge, you see the positions juxtaposed on empathy as well, with the dependent guy mostly focused on his own wants and needs even as he serves the leader woman, meanwhile the leader woman (while perhaps put off by her man's dependent nature) has a much more complete understanding of him than he has of her.

One other note... I don't recall if the Stanford study differentiated between the concepts of empathy and sympathy, but I don't believe it did, and I think what you were really seeing there was a lack of sympathy rather than a lack of empathy.

I bet had you taken prisoners and guards aside and asked each to get inside the other's head and tell you what the other was thinking, the guard would have a clearer idea about how the prisoner was actually thinking; meanwhile, the prisoner I'd expect to have an extreme/idealized version of the guard thoughts ("He probably thinks he's so big and mighty and enjoys lording it over me" --> when in actual fact the guard is likely to be thinking "Man, gotta get this prisoner to fall in line again. Hey, when's lunch?").

Chase

 

[Alpha13SC]

I think those experiments showed clearly that having a lot of power over powerless people tends to produce a lack of empathy. I've seen this discussed in many different historical contexts.

But the question is, does lack of empathy facilitate having control in personal relationships? I don't think so - as long as you separate empathy from emotional investment, and particularly from emotional control, as you alluded to further on in your post.

I would not say yes, because they're clearly two different things, but I would not say not as well. Not because of lack of empathy particularly, but what this might imply. Emotions are an investment in somebody/something. By following this logic, having empathy towards somebody makes them easier to influence you, grabbing frame, and so on. This lack of empathy should be compensated with other traits, most of the time found in the dark triad traits.

So in my opinion, a slightly less empathy could make one keeping his frame better than somebody who has his emotions twisted. I don't think it's the healthiest way to run a relationship.

I want to say that this logic may be flawed, but it's something I ve discovered along the time. Especially in short terms relationships.

Or I'm just misinterpreting empathy with sympathy, as @Chase said, tho I think they're sure corelated.

I personally think that's a good thing - I am attracted to women who judge men and don't give their love and respect easily, in fact I think most men instinctively gravitate to this as something valuable, though few are capable of maintaining frame within it. When she's honest and capable of communicating her signals from a submissive frame (i.e. not being annoying and overbearing), a woman like that can produce some incredibly fast growth. There's nothing quite like the satisfaction of having a woman point out all your mistakes, fixing them, and then fucking her afterward.

For sure, it's feeling like a winning to know that you're still in charge. That's how I see it. Funny how she still sees you as a leader, and making the assumption that you're be better next time by making those little correction/little drama as I m calling them. An opportunity to become better and making a better impression in your woman's eyes. Problematic would be if she wouldn't tell you at all, checking you out.

Very true. Empathy is not the same as emotional investment, it's just that empathy without self-control tends to produce mirrored emotions that can be difficult to separate from one's own.

So here I disagree a little bit as it's not emotional investment. It's not that emotional investment, technically speaking. That's my first point actually, the inability to separate personal emotions from the ones generated by empathy could mean frame change which isn't an optimal thing, if not recognized.

That said I think there's a bit of confusion in the way that the mainstream portrays people displaying low empathy. I think they are not actually unemotional, but their emotions are compressed and somewhat submerged under the surface of their conscious experience. But that's a bit off topic.

This is actually interesting. How's to be low empathy and high empathy, and more from it, that type of persons and maybe a diagram can be displayed, running axes with Empathy/Power(as individual/power of will/status/etc) and adding also Sympathy, making it tridimensional. Could recognize some human patterns(Leader/Dictator/etc)

What do you mean by the reciprocal here?

If a lack of empathy can generate power. But reading it again, I don't think you mean that.

It happens on forums too. As a regular poster you aren't thinking too much about how the top guys are thinking. You might have some thoughts about it, but they're going to tend to be caricatures drawn from sweeping assumptions about them. But when you're one of the guy's running the place you need to be paying close attention to how everyone else is thinking, because if not, there will soon be a disconnect between the way you manage the forum and how the folks on the forum care to use it, and once that is the case you will start hearing about it from everybody.

I was thinking about your personal case as well, as owner of the site and the style of responding to objections/challenges, having a higher EQ virtually to keep the direction of forum ahead. Almost the same dynamics as in real socials.

As you go up, you have fewer and fewer peers, and possibly no superiors, and everyone beneath you is putting you on a pedestal or going the opposite way and demonizing you or viewing you as some sort of caricature of yourself. Just like in relationships... you get the girl complaining you "don't really understand her" over some little tiny thing, when you can just sit there and tell her all about herself and she will nod her head and say "You totally get it; you're right; yes, that's so right", meanwhile she is unable to do that for you.

Felt that on my own, in my past LTR when I was waiting for my gf to understand me and see things from my point of view as I was doing with her, trying to understand her, and then making her trying to understand me. I think I was asking for too much sometimes, seeking the equality in relationship.

One other note... I don't recall if the Stanford study differentiated between the concepts of empathy and sympathy, but I don't believe it did, and I think what you were really seeing there was a lack of sympathy rather than a lack of empathy.

True here, I might be misinterpreted them. Even so, I think I saw even a study making this claim about empathy. Google search is full of this also.

I bet had you taken prisoners and guards aside and asked each to get inside the other's head and tell you what the other was thinking, the guard would have a clearer idea about how the prisoner was actually thinking; meanwhile, the prisoner I'd expect to have an extreme/idealized version of the guard thoughts ("He probably thinks he's so big and mighty and enjoys lording it over me" --> when in actual fact the guard is likely to be thinking "Man, gotta get this prisoner to fall in line again. Hey, when's lunch?").

This is interesting. I assume they were regular prisoners, not some top socials prisoners from there, who ran the place.

Alpha13SC

 

[Bigjo]

Isn't the OP here turning into lover of women like zan parrion? Where he just enjoy being in the presence of a women?