Cognitive Dissonance between two similar ideas i have been learning?

redbluepilling · 2013-10-02T05:53:59+00:00

There really isn't a dissonance if you think about it in the right way. (I was just thinking about this exact topic yesterday! Reconciling Carnegie with TRP. I feel like this is important, as so many have read it, so bear with me).

a lot of Beta behaviors when it comes to talking with females, such as giving them plenty of attention, taking a guanine interests in them, and always remembering their birthdays and names and such.

This is where you're thinking about it poorly. The keyword (which you misspelt) is GENUINE. Do not give them attention because you want something from them, be in the moment, and let them pour their soul to you.

Here's a great quote you should remember: "It's better to be interested than interesting."

Obviously, you should be making an interesting life for yourself, but stop trying to convey how interesting you are to her!! That holds true from the first time you say hello to more intimate talk. I'm sure you've heard not to be too try hard. Well that's what this is. ^{If you're thinking of old PUA DHV shit--trying to prove how great you are with words-- it isn't a great way it's a horrible way to go about things. She's more in tune with the confidence you radiate via your actions. That's the real, initial demonstration of high value.} Instead of trying to prove yourself, focus the onus on her. She needs to prove herself to you. Expect her to contribute to the conversation. If she doesn't, she's the weird one, give her another chance to do it better, then if she does, reward her positively. All the while, you're not doing a song and dance for her, when other guys would--she feels this, and she's getting more comfortable with you as she's sharing. You're encouraging all of her positive contributions and actions. All of this matches up with Carnege.

So, back to what you said. You should be interested in the girl you want to fuck--but your motivation has to not come from a level of neediness. (If she's not really that interesting to you, she doesn't have much value, why are you doing this??). You need to be outcome independent. You need to be okay with the fact that, if things go sour, you're not deeply invested. You've got your own good shit going on.

^{The few caveats you may be thinking of: If she's shit-testing you, feel free to be disinterested. If you're playing around in a casual conversation, it's fine to jokingly be disinterested or dismissive. If she's talking about boring shit, and you're disinterested..change the frame. Here's an example: She starts talking about the weather. Are you interested and playing along with her conversation? Unless you're a meteorologist, the answer is No. Carnegie tells you to find what interests them, and they can talk for ages. So, change up the conversation. Counter ex: You've moved w/ her to a corner in the bar & she starts telling you about her life growing up. Are you interested? Yes. Yes you are. Also, simple shit like remembering her birthday? You're not doing this to get her approval or a reward...you're rewarding her for being good. There's more to alpha than being an asshole.}

IdleGod · 2013-10-02T15:14:31+00:00

A good book, that I haven't entirely read yet, is "48 laws of power". I'm only a few laws in, but there seems to be a very "red pill" bent to it. The author even describes a scene where one dude acts all aloof, uncaring towards a girl until she is absolutely enthralled. He then spills about how he loves her, and is attracted to her, like a beta bitch, and she just tells him to basically fuck off.

Women today are a LOT different than women of the past. The marketplace has shifted from a man's selection (generally speaking) to a woman's selection.

Try them both; see which one works. I assure you, being a beta bitch does not, but try it on your own. Unless you are staggeringly attractive, it's not gonna happen.

randarrow · 2013-10-08T02:35:24+00:00

We live in a different world. At this point, Dale Carnegie's (DCs) work could almost be considered some sort of ideal to aspire to. I was taught that there are many purposes of being nice, not just so that we live in a better world but so that if we become good enough we can choose the people to be around us. I would love to live in a place were people truly are patient and gracious to each other. But, that is not our world today.

DCs world was a scary place, in depression era America. People were scared. People weren't nice. People reacted to pleasantness like a drug and it could easily be used to build empathy with them and gauge them. A smile was a rare treasure. And, if you could afford a smile it was a good way to build friends (or get mugged...) DCs work was also very culturally specific.

Thanks partly to DCs work, the world is now inundated with so many niceties politeness is becoming scary, a cliche, and passe. Think about it, when someone in public smiles at me, I look to get away. Do they want to sell me something? Are they going to harrass me? We are inundated with smiles and people trying to be nice to us, just in order to use us. We see pleasantness constantly on TV. Smiling ads are everywhere. We get so much dopamine from the world that we become numb. The crass has become interesting and the only way to relate to people. Many people do relate to each other by bullying them now. A big smile is something to be ignored.

Think of it like a video game. If you played a game where you make three obvious moves and the game is over in this rush of explosions and pretty graphics. Just that's it, click click over. Would you play it again? What about another video game, you make three moves then die, with no way to move forward. Would you play it again. Maybe a few times for each, but that's it. Social interactions are like this. We see so many people who are so spectacularly nice we avoid them there is no game or pleasure in meeting them. And so many people who would sooner kill us than give us the time of day, that there is no game or pleasure in meeting them. We can look at TRP interactions as another path. Where, we give people just enough challenge, interest, and reward to keep their attention while we evaluate and decide what to think of them.

If we give someone all the joy in the world from the get go we will have no chance at a real relationship with them. If we fucking beat them and hurt them from the get go we will have no change at a real relationship with them. There's some sort of counter-intuitive middle path we are trying to find here which changes from place to place and from era to era.

This is one tiny part and one small perspective on TRP. DCs work is a portion of a much bigger picture.

Title	Cognitive Dissonance between two similar ideas i have been learning?
Author	XCowboyLowkesx
Upvotes	9
Comments	10
Date	October 2, 2013 4:23 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/askTRP
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/asktrp/comments/1nkaq7/cognitive_dissonance_between_two_similar_ideas_i/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/askTRP/cognitive-dissonance-between-two-similar-ideas-i.138369 https://theredarchive.com/post/138369

Comments