CMV: A man who has done extensive research on women and relationships but has not really been involved with them knows FAR MORE than a man who has lots experience with women without looking at studies and research.

Netheral · 2024-04-08T00:02:35+00:00

You learn that they're just human. If all you do is read about them like they're some exotic species, you'll build the wrong idea in your head.

Solondthewookiee · 2024-04-07T23:57:43+00:00

"I know all there is to know about surgery, I read all the textbooks! Who cares if I've never actually done one??"

Crash-Panda · 2024-04-08T00:02:39+00:00

Humans are complicated. Women and men are all humans and it's hard to learn about humans with scientific studies. That's what the entire field of psychology tries to do.

Studies will never encompass the specifics of the women around you. For example, I am in a minority religious community. A majority of the women I'm around, are shown as a minority in the studies because we are only a small part of the US population. For me, anecdotes are more reliable indicators of relationships than studies of America overall.

MongoBobalossus · 2024-04-08T00:20:44+00:00

Lol no.

There is no substitute for lived experience.

Wattehfok · 2024-04-08T00:01:02+00:00

I’m a plumber.

I have made many thousands of dollars fixing the work of engineers convinced they know everything worth knowing about their plumbing.

BigZaddyZ3 · 2024-04-08T00:06:15+00:00

Ehh… I’d say they are mostly even in a way. A man that has read lots of research but has no clue how to actually interact with women in the real world isn’t inherently better off than a man who has tons of experience with women in the real world (even if the second guy may not be an expert on the science behind it all or whatever.)

Your post basically amounts to someone claiming that a person who spent years studying the science behind the game of basketball knows more about the the game than a person who actually plays in the NBA… Not quite. They are both knowledgeable in different ways, but only one has the actual success needed to actually backup their worldview. Claiming to know everything about women based on studies alone means nothing if you still proceed to struggle with them regardless when they’re actually in your presence.

But I do agree that there can be certain things that a person could only understand once they’ve done their homework on the matter… I just wouldn’t go as far as saying that the person who’s actually having real world success is as clueless as you’re suggesting.

Kim8mi · 2024-04-08T00:28:00+00:00

Urgh I'm so done with this mindset that men and women are so incredibly different that one could not even start to understand the other, it's so damaging to our already damaged society.

keepinitrealzs · 2024-04-08T01:41:47+00:00

This is the most terminally online thing I’ve ever seen. Nothing will come close to interpersonal human connections.

ILikeBird · 2024-04-08T00:09:41+00:00

Almost every profession would disagree with you. If reading about a topic was enough to fully understand it, why do universities require labs for STEM courses? Why do doctors need to do rotations? Why do school counselors have to complete practicum? Why do teachers have to complete student teaching?

Reading about a topic can only give you so much experience compared to completing a topic. It’s why some people with a lower education but more experience will make more than someone with a higher education in the same job. Reading doesn’t give you a good understanding of body language or other small signals. It’s like trying to learn Spanish purely from reading it and having no idea what the language actually sounds like.

Daniel_Bryan_Fan · 2024-04-08T00:24:18+00:00

The football commentator might know everything there is to know about being a quarterback but it doesn’t mean shit if he can’t throw a ball.

Fabulous_HonestTea · 2024-04-08T00:46:11+00:00

Male user makes slightly disparaging remark about women based on lived experience

Female user demands peer reviewed documented proof of said remark

Male user posts study

Female user tells male user to touch grass and stop learning about women from studies

The_Forgotten001 · 2024-04-08T00:00:03+00:00

This is the difference between being Book smart and street smart.

Studies tell you an overall pattern, Individual experience provides nuance to tell who from who.

For example A gold digger and a Trade wife look similar on paper. But experience tells you a trad wife reinvests in the relationship while a gold-digger only extracts from a relationship

OctoPuscifer · 2024-04-08T00:31:53+00:00

Is that why they struggle with dates and cry about it here?

Also watching a few manosphere podcasts isn’t ‘research’

holyskillet · 2024-04-07T23:54:16+00:00

How can I change your mind if you don't care about anecdotal experience? Drop you a study?

MyLastBestChance · 2024-04-08T00:09:39+00:00

Tell you what, read a dozen books about skiing and then get dropped off at the top of a double black diamond with someone who has been skiing since they were a kid and see how it goes…

NoDanaOnlyZuuI · 2024-04-08T00:33:01+00:00

Theoretical experience is inferior to practical experience.

Proudvow · 2024-04-08T00:56:57+00:00

I don't think so. There are things you learn on a subconscious level that can't be conveyed well through text. These two guys have different sets of knowledge.

I'd trust the latter more to go out and get a girlfriend. I'd trust the former more to provide accurate information about women (to the extent that you can in mere words).

But of course this means that the latter is far more fit to participate in debates on forums like this, if their research is legit and they've interpreted it properly. The former having success in real life doesn't mean shit here if he can't accurately articulate and explain his experiences.

Hoopy223 · 2024-04-08T01:02:57+00:00

This is kinda like the engineer who built the car arguing with the guy who drives it every day about how to change the oil.

Gold_Supermarket1956 · 2024-04-08T03:24:14+00:00

Imma quote a general here "No plan survives contact with the enemy." Just because it looks good on paper don't mean it will work in practice.. and most women can spot inexperienced men a mile away

East_Writer_2892 · 2024-04-08T17:53:50+00:00

Hmm a guy who has no success with women but has "Studied" them or a guy who has recorded success of attracting and taking women on dates, sex etc. Gee I wonder which one understands women better

Intellect7000 · 2024-04-08T20:05:34+00:00

What research is this? What have you found out?

watermel0nch0ly · 2024-04-08T00:23:15+00:00

AHAHAHAHAHA

Let me guess... not a ton of luck with the girlies there OP? And you have lots of big feelings and opinions about them that you want to share?

AutoModerator · 2024-04-07T23:50:46+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

AutoModerator · 2024-04-07T23:50:46+00:00

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

KayRay1994 · 2024-04-08T00:16:14+00:00

Not really - a lot of these stats tend to depend on aggregates and generalizations, and often enough they’re made broadly enough to fit as wide a demographic as possible. In other words, they work for studying larger societal trends and directions, but not individuals. Once you start applying these aggregates at an individual level you’re officially dismissing individuals and are not using this information as intended.

Alfred-Adler · 2024-04-08T00:20:50+00:00

Look at it this way:

CMV: A man who has done extensive research on swimming and swimming competitions but has not really been involved with them knows FAR MORE than a man who has lots experience with swimming without looking at studies and research.

Same for:

Riding a bycicle.
Sex.

Dorkology · 2024-04-08T00:21:38+00:00

Has anyone else ever noticed the tendency of people to take a "This over that" stance?

I've found that people who get a good balance of both are far less likely to draw conclusions that stray far from their intended mark than those who take the "either or" approach.

Bubbly_Pension4020 · 2024-04-08T00:22:41+00:00

I don’t think studies help relationships all that much. They’re too generalized to really help all that much

I would say observing other people’s relationships helps a lot. Especially people that are a lot different from you, because most people are going to fall into a pattern really quickly which is going to make your years of experience extremely limited. There are people that have had five billion dysfunctional relationships that have no idea what a functional one looks like.

WolfFamous6976 · 2024-04-08T00:29:34+00:00

It’s both and not either or. Experience with theory equals mastery. One half of the pie equals novice

Demasii · 2024-04-08T00:38:26+00:00

Sociology is considered a soft science. Rigorous experimentation is impossible because variables are uncontrollable.

RevealingPanda · 2024-04-08T01:02:38+00:00

A man who only thinks, has nothing to think about but thoughts.

Mental_Leek_2806 · 2024-04-08T01:03:57+00:00

This is one of the most "needs to touch grass" post I've seen on this sub and that's really saying something

arcticshqip · 2024-04-08T01:44:54+00:00

But he might be happier because he wouldn't treat women as hive-minded enemy and treat them as humans.

SlowEffective8146 · 2024-04-08T01:58:04+00:00

Nah you need both tbh

You are only half complete if you do 1 or the other

Legitimate_Type_1324 · 2024-04-08T02:37:22+00:00

Experience and theory are 50/50

MistyMaisel · 2024-04-08T03:43:10+00:00

I mean, you could learn about that woman for a start. And get some colorfulness on the rest of um through repeated encounters. If you'd never seen a giraffe would you say you had nothing to learn about them because of online studies. Some stuff has to be beheld.

just_a_place · 2024-04-08T03:44:46+00:00

"There is nothing you can learn about women in person that you cannot find in many of the studies about them online."

That's like saying you can learn to ride a bike by reading all about it. 🤨 That you can just know how to ride a bike by just watching some YouTube videos about it, but never actually get on the damned thing and peddle it and stay balanced.

I got news for you buddy. This is why architects make shitty mechanics. The bridge between theory and application is called practice. There is no substitute for knowing women without actually knowing them.

" I don’t care what your anecdotal experiences are. Now change my mind! "

Why? You already made up your mind. "God said it! I believe it! That settles it!" We don't make a habit of arguing with walls.

Aafan_Barbarro · 2024-04-08T06:15:02+00:00

The only argument people have here is that knowledge about subject doesn't exist to them unless it also comes with demonstrated success. So like basically you can't know anything about football unless you are a profesionnal football player winning the championships.

Ok-Dust-4156 · 2024-04-08T06:32:50+00:00

Absolutely no. Most information that you can find is bullshit, so extensive research based on bullshit will create even more bullshit. You have to go and check your ideas in real world. I'd say that doing pure theoretical research is bad idea because it lead to failure. It's better idea to go out, check how it works and then do research based on your own experience.

Sad-Climate-1074 · 2024-04-08T06:35:35+00:00

I have over a decade of relationship experience but I never understood that women’s and men’s psychology are fundamentally different until I read about relationships.

Objective_Ad_6265 · 2024-04-08T08:43:24+00:00

Neither is valid. Statistic is only average, doesn't tell you anything about a real person. Experience applies only to one specific person. And every person is unique, so with every individual person you always start from zero.

TheDerInDisorder · 2024-04-08T10:57:54+00:00

A historian technically knows more about war than a veteran soldier. I don't like their odds in the field though.

obviousredflag · 2024-04-08T14:59:32+00:00

"Knowing far more" with regards to taking part in discussions about the topics he read about, sure. Anecdotes don't compare. But in the end, what is the point of knowing more? We do want to get real life results. And as far as i can see on this sub, knowledge doesn't get people anywhere. Action does.

BoomTheBear86 · 2024-04-08T16:48:36+00:00

This scenario is assuming the studies of women render perfect or accurate knowledge of them.

Yet for all the studies we have, we still don’t have a precise theory of how love works, how to make people attracted to you. They’re all just suggestions and generalisations.

So basically the scenario is a person who’s read up on a load of generalisations but never tested them versus someone who has had real life experience with these individuals that are (as yet) imperfectly described in studies.

I know which I’d favour.

untamed-italian · 2024-04-08T21:42:18+00:00

Damn this is low effort

Hrquestiob · 2024-04-08T23:18:26+00:00

Having lots of interactions and relationships isn’t mutually exclusive with understanding and consuming research

KSD171 · 2024-04-12T18:36:37+00:00

What is there to “understand l” about women? They’re just people at the end of the day lol.

You don’t sit and study men for years do you? Do you feel a need to study men as extensively?

kyonshi61 · 2024-04-08T01:20:35+00:00

There we have it ladies and gentlemen, the most terminally online cope ever to exist.

"I know all there is to know about women because I've read studies!"

sublimemongrel · 2024-04-08T00:35:56+00:00

No you are wrong

KikiYuyu · 2024-04-08T01:03:23+00:00

If you need to hire someone, would you rather have someone with a bunch of success and experience, or someone who has only studied it extensively?

Yveskleinsky · 2024-04-08T01:04:57+00:00

I wish life worked like that, but it doesn't. Like Mike Tyson once said, "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."

One of the big differences between learned and lived experience has to do with emotions. It's easy to learn about something, and it's another to actually live it. Life and the people in it can be chaotic. Our response to stress can surprise even ourselves. Not to mention, relationships bring out the best and worst in people. All kinds of unhealed emotional wounds surface and all kinds of psychological defense mechanisms are deployed--and often times both are done subconsciously.

WilliamWyattD · 2024-04-08T01:06:12+00:00

There are different types of knowing. It would be hard to say which of these two guys knows more about women. They both know different things.

purplish_possum · 2024-04-08T01:27:43+00:00

Relationships are very hard to quantify. People who have read novels and poems about relationships and love, listened to songs about love and headache, and watched plays and movies about love know way more than egghead social scientists.

However, nothing, absolutely nothing, is a substitute for actual experience.

Opening_Tell9388 · 2024-04-08T00:43:51+00:00

most pill men don’t actually know how to read research papers, studies, etc. you guys will find 1 thing in a study and then discount the rest of the information.

I think reading how to ride a bike and actually having real life experiences with riding a bike are two different things.

waffleznstuff30 · 2024-04-08T01:20:54+00:00

Absolutely not. There is no contest.

A person who has dated and or spent a lot of time around women knows infinitely more than a guy who reads evo psychology and reads about women online. A lot of the "extensive research" is biased studies and essentially just red pill/incel pipeline fuel. There's a reason why guys who are really into manosphere stuff don't get play from women. It's because they do not know how women work. Or has these broad assumptions about women because one study said this.

The guy who has lots of experience will know a lot more about the nuances of women's behavior because he has meet and dated many women and has an idea of what he likes. What he will tolerate what he won't tolerate. He likely will have more social skills. He will know far more than a dude who sits at his computer reading tinder studies and listens to the broad assumptions of evo psychology.

Comments