Agreed. Outside men who are seeking the information, keep it on the downlow.
With that said I have dropped pithy little mental models, and if asked to explain, go into a bit more detail. But I naturally talk like this anyways and have formed my own mental models before I ever found this space, so anyone who knows me is already used to it and it is a matter of just tossing in common maxims.
Example:
Friend: I can't believe she was cheating on me, why didn't she just break up with me?
Me: Girls don't leave a warm bed for a cold one.
Thing is, this isn't new. A ton of common phrases tapping into nature of women have been around forever. Due to multiple environmental factors this knowledge is no longer common and forced to the confines of a highly unattractive space in the corner of the internet.
I am curious about your expanded take on Carnegie's How To Win Friends and Influence People.
I believe that with particular behaviors and communication strategies, there is a tradeoff between likability and respect. Typical female communication is optimized for likability and not respect (the main reason why less women become senior managers), while the narcissistic and/or autistic (hyper-male) communication is all respect, no likability.
The advice in Carnegie's book is heavily biased towards likability. This works in many social contexts as you noted ('Win Friends') and in some business context (it seemed to me like Carnegie wrote his book for traveling salesmen, but I don't think it works in a cutthroat corporate rat race to the senior manager position). However, I don't think its best for seduction. All likability and no respect is what puts you into friendzone, all respect and no likability usually doesn't get you far either unless it's in a BDSM context or the girl has some sort of personality disorder. Obviously there is no rule that works with every woman and you need to calibrate, but overall I believe it should be more leaned towards respect, as this gets recognized as high status. And this is different from most advice from Carnegie's book, so I think a distinction should be made here.
The book is basically good but it is a tool and not the only tool one should have. In dating and women it's useful to have some edge, to know when to break rapport, etc. Carnegie is a little too focused on agreeability as you identify, but there is a time and place for it, and many of his insights, like people preferring to talk about themselves, are good.
Most guys never really manage to get out of the basement insofar as social skills are concerned...
Agreed. Outside men who are seeking the information, keep it on the downlow.
With that said I have dropped pithy little mental models, and if asked to explain, go into a bit more detail. But I naturally talk like this anyways and have formed my own mental models before I ever found this space, so anyone who knows me is already used to it and it is a matter of just tossing in common maxims.
Example:
Friend: I can't believe she was cheating on me, why didn't she just break up with me?
Me: Girls don't leave a warm bed for a cold one.
Thing is, this isn't new. A ton of common phrases tapping into nature of women have been around forever. Due to multiple environmental factors this knowledge is no longer common and forced to the confines of a highly unattractive space in the corner of the internet.
I am curious about your expanded take on Carnegie's How To Win Friends and Influence People.
I believe that with particular behaviors and communication strategies, there is a tradeoff between likability and respect. Typical female communication is optimized for likability and not respect (the main reason why less women become senior managers), while the narcissistic and/or autistic (hyper-male) communication is all respect, no likability.
The advice in Carnegie's book is heavily biased towards likability. This works in many social contexts as you noted ('Win Friends') and in some business context (it seemed to me like Carnegie wrote his book for traveling salesmen, but I don't think it works in a cutthroat corporate rat race to the senior manager position). However, I don't think its best for seduction. All likability and no respect is what puts you into friendzone, all respect and no likability usually doesn't get you far either unless it's in a BDSM context or the girl has some sort of personality disorder. Obviously there is no rule that works with every woman and you need to calibrate, but overall I believe it should be more leaned towards respect, as this gets recognized as high status. And this is different from most advice from Carnegie's book, so I think a distinction should be made here.
The book is basically good but it is a tool and not the only tool one should have. In dating and women it's useful to have some edge, to know when to break rapport, etc. Carnegie is a little too focused on agreeability as you identify, but there is a time and place for it, and many of his insights, like people preferring to talk about themselves, are good.
Most guys never really manage to get out of the basement insofar as social skills are concerned...