Post: #26

(07-13-2018 12:04 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  he just is who he is and doesn't mind talking about his life.

A guy who I think was strong in that was Lemmy from Motorhead. Mavericks.

Most people conform or at least wear a facade to fit in. People who are able to tolerate other people's negative judgments and disapproval show a lot of courage and authenticity.

And I'm NOT talking about people who are constantly lashing out at criticism. It's more of a take-it-or-leave-it give-no-fucks attitude, shrugging your shoulders and getting on with life.

The dustup recently with Elon Musk and the submarine is the polar opposite. It shows someone who is desperately trying to burnish and protect his public image. That comes across as weak.

Post: #27

A lot of irony in this thread. Guys with low agreeableness not agreeing that the Big 5 is legit..... but they forgot to do their homework.

The Big 5 has been around since the 1960s. It's widely accepted as the best personality trait model in personality psychology. It's not only used in academia but it's used in business by many different types of people - recruiters, investigators, marketers, etc. Perhaps the most relevant is in marketing and advertising where it is used extensively. Big corporations usually don't spend big money on advertising without testing. The big 5 has been vetted. It's not perfect but it's more legit than random comments on an internet forum.

I'm very low in agreeableness so I'm going to go ahead and disagree with debeguiled about not needing to pay for the big 5 test. I don't know about the free test that he left a link for so this isn't confirmed but typically the paid tests (about $7 or $10) come with much more extensive results. It might be the best $10 you ever spend.

   

Psychology is misunderstood on this forum. It's the science that deals with mental processes and behavior. Game is psychology. The misunderstanding is likely because psychology in academia has been infiltrated by radical left lunatics so some psychology has been bastardized but real psychology is one of the most useful things we could ever learn about.

In response to the original post - relating the Big 5's agreeableness factor with a man's physical size and sexual marketplace value might require some bro-science. Theoretically a smaller man might be more agreeable but I think that would just be in situations with other men, not other women, because larger men might intimidate the small man but women probably wouldn't. I don't think there is much to this concept that would make you want to change your behavior in anyway. Be confident and don't act like you have short man syndrome but we already know this.

I'm still in bro-science mode here.... I think low agreeableness probably has somewhat of a positive correlation with male sexual marketplace value especially in the west where there are a lot of soy boys and over-confidence / Heartiste game seems to work with the women who are simultaneously complaining about the patriarchy and rape culture as they read their 50 Shades of Grey books. Women are simultaneously trying to emasculate the male population while their subconscious brains are seeking men who are even more masculine to compensate. Also, "Alpha" is an ambiguous term but I think we generally associate alpha with competitive and competitive is essentially the same thing as low in agreeableness.

A guy could probably benefit from being less agreeable but I wouldn't overdo it. These personality factors tend to work together so a guy might lose more value if his faked low agreeableness makes him appear incongruent. I think we have learned from our game experiences that you can fake it until you make it, but only a little bit for a short time. I think the same concept applies with this.

Back to real science. Fortis posted a gif of Michael Jordan. MJ is a guy with extremely low agreeableness. You could extrapolate that from knowing how insanely competitive he is but if you've also heard about some of his antics from his playing days then you would see the signs of low agreeableness, such as getting in fights during practices and whatnot.

I studied personality psychology before I knew about game and this forum. Many of you will think this is far-fetched but I'm convinced it is the missing link to game. I've always had this theory but I feel much stronger about it now. In my opinion, this forum as a whole isn't very good with LTRs or choosing the best women for an LTR or anything with LTRs. There are a few guys on here that have some good experience but most of us don't. It's just the opinion of one guy with low agreeableness but I think we fool ourselves into believing we are more skilled and knowledgeable about LTRs than we are. In my opinion this is where personality psychology can become more valuable than our concept of game.

The only downside I see is that it takes time to learn this, similar to game. It's not something you can use effectively after reading a few blog posts. You've got to understand most of the model and not just a few of the components.

Post: #28

(07-12-2018 04:23 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  It comes from the Big Five personality inventory that you can take here for free. You don't have to go to Peterson's website and pay:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/~j5j/IPIP/

The shorter test from that link appears identical to this one:

(07-14-2018 06:55 PM)Dodgy Wrote:  But I did get my score and I scored very low on agreeableness. I scored in the 4th percentile and the definition that I got from the site I took it (123test.com) was low agreeableness is hard-headed, sceptical, competitive and proud. High agreeableness is compassionate, eager to please and good natured.

FTR, I scored a 1, which is surprising actually as I'm not the least agreeable person I know. Clinical categories measured - Trust in others, Sincerity, Altruism, Compliance, Modesty, Sympathy

Gamewise, when I first got into it after reading The Game and other early lit, I was definitely going overboard on the cocky/asshole end. Only after a lot of trial and error did I learn that what worked for Neil Strauss and David D isn't one-size-fits-all. I'm tall and decently built and got cold shouldered a lot, relatively few conspicuous blow outs, probably because of the intimidation factor of size and low agreeability. Comparing that to another guy I know on the opposite end - much smaller (though deceivingly tough), good looking, and much more agreeable by the big five definitions, he gets shit on constantly when he goes out. One of the first times I went out with him one fat girl was trying to start a fight with him over nothing, and later our group was all chuckling at some girl's terrible parking job and she specifically singled him out and got in his face. He laughed off both of these and wound up getting a number and quick kiss from the hot one later. So deflection could be a valuable tool for those higher in agreeableness. This might be viewed as part of "trust in others" - the belief that she's just having an off moment so he brushes it off in a lighthearted way and makes her feel silly for overreacting, rather than telling her to go fuck herself like I probably would have. This guy creamed my results on Tinder when we were both on it, hot matches rolling in and 2AM messages like "how about that pizza now?" that I've never seen in my life. Real life results were comparable but he definitely had to overcome a different style of shit tests than I did most of the time.

(07-16-2018 11:11 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  

(07-16-2018 10:40 AM)chicane Wrote:  I'm really not very good at being disagreeable, so instead I go with my natural inclination to agree and then either amplify or be really sarcastic. It really is so much easier to sarcastically "agree" than to totally disagree.

I do this too. It is kind of a negliment. You start off with your natural inclination to be nice, and then take it off on a tangent.

Like:

"That was actually pretty funny. Pause. But then I laugh at anything."

Or:

"I love your dress. Pause. I know a girl it would look amazing on."

Love these lines, classic push/pull. Would distinguish them from sarcasm, which I don't find to be beneficial to game. Most sarcasm seems passive aggressive and rapport seeking. Like Chicane says, it's often someone who wants to disagree but doesn't want to take the social risk to actually do so overtly. Another common use that pops to mind is when someone wants to get a laugh but lacks the wit to make a novel statement so they state something obvious in a sarcastic tone and hope for a chuckle. Maybe others have a different experience with it, but I'm not a fan.

(07-19-2018 06:04 PM)birthday cat Wrote:  I studied personality psychology before I knew about game and this forum. Many of you will think this is far-fetched but I'm convinced it is the missing link to game. I've always had this theory but I feel much stronger about it now. In my opinion, this forum as a whole isn't very good with LTRs or choosing the best women for an LTR or anything with LTRs. There are a few guys on here that have some good experience but most of us don't. It's just the opinion of one guy with low agreeableness but I think we fool ourselves into believing we are more skilled and knowledgeable about LTRs than we are. In my opinion this is where personality psychology can become more valuable than our concept of game.

The only downside I see is that it takes time to learn this, similar to game. It's not something you can use effectively after reading a few blog posts. You've got to understand most of the model and not just a few of the components.

A lot of the early PUA stuff was all about applying psychology to game, from the fringes of NLP to mainstream stuff like Cialdini. What do you mean specifically by "personality psychology", and what do you recommend for reading?

Post: #29

(07-22-2018 03:16 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  ...
A lot of the early PUA stuff was all about applying psychology to game, from the fringes of NLP to mainstream stuff like Cialdini. What do you mean specifically by "personality psychology", and what do you recommend for reading?

Personality psychology is a branch of psychology that studies personality and its variation among individuals. It is a scientific study which aims to show how people are individually different due to psychological forces.

This is the wikipedia page where I got that definition but I think this article is a better and shorter introduction to personality psychology and the big 5 personality traits.

This video is an introduction to the big 5 from one of Jordan Peterson's classes. I know some people don't like Peterson's politics but this video is strictly an academic lecture and he is highly qualified in this area.

I'll give an example of how these concepts can be helpful in relationships. Many guys on this forum are low in agreeableness but want a traditional wife. There is some conflict here and understanding the big 5 can prevent you from marrying the wrong women or help you understand what sacrifices and compromises need to be made so the relationship will work.

Typically you want to avoid having a partner who is extremely different from you in one of the personality traits because that difference is going to create conflict, however, many guys on this forum are low in agreeableness but they want very traditional wives and unfortunately a woman who is traditional and wants to play a supportive role to a husband is almost definitely going to be high in agreeableness and support characteristics. So you have to balance these things by possibly not marrying a women if the two of you are polar opposites or by knowing how to manage less extreme personality differences.

Peterson talks about the same example at the 25 minute mark of his video. However, I experienced this situation in my life many years before I knew who Peterson was and I correlated it to a different personality model at the time using almost the exact same words as Peterson, so I know this happens in the real world. There are disciplines within psychology that might be bad science or aren't applicable to the real world but the big 5 is accurate and realistic.

Post: #30

I understand where you're coming from here. Fan of JP but I feel like he's oversimplifying that bit at 25:00 - or it could also just come down to knowing game being the compensator.

Looking back at the test with the scoring criteria in mind, I see that the reason I scored so low is that I fundamentally distrust people and strongly believe they have selfish intentions, even when they feel like they're being altruistic, a la Nietzsche and his views on pity. But that doesn't mean that awareness of a woman's selfish motivations (as well as my own) needs to diminish the tenderness of the moments we might share together. We can cuddle and have our pet names, and I'll still hit her with a harsh tease if she starts to think I'm going soft. Push-pull, always. I enjoy the endorphins while they're there, just try not to attach some grandiose meaning to them.

The girlfriend I had the most conflict with was probably also the lowest agreeability, likely similar to me on the other big 5 as well. Same with agreeableness on the last fling I had drama with. It would seem that putting two people who are low in compliance together is just asking for constant fighting. I'm not modest but I like women who are, same with sympathy.

Part of it might also be how comfortable a person is in taking charge of situations regularly without getting burnt out. It has been demonstrated clinically that having to make difficult decisions drains a person, and eventually they get frustrated and simply resort to the easy decision (judges and parole is the one that pops to mind but there are others). Some people just drain more easily though. One might even say that Alpha/Beta is largely a shorthand for tolerance to decision making. To go back to the vid, I'd never push a girl to tell me what she wanted if she was giving me the option of choice.

My current girlfriend (1.5yrs+) is extremely high in compliance, high in modesty and probably above average in the other agreeable criteria. She's low in conscientiousness, unlike me, which does bother me somewhat but because of her high compliance she will still follow through on things like the gym and job searching in exchange for validation. High compliance means that she'll get dolled up and go out with me, even if she'd rather be on the couch watching Netflix.

Maybe one of these years I'll have that revelation that others have written about, that my entire love life has been trying to avoid the female-dominant dynamic I grew up around. But until them I'm at least as happy as I've ever been, and mostly dating women with very different personalities from my own.

I'd be interested to hear how this squares with the experience you mentioned- do/did you find yourself happier dating lower agreeability women? What was your level of game at the time you were categorizing the experience? What do you consider your tolerance for decision making to be?

Post: #31

(07-26-2018 09:55 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  I understand where you're coming from here. Fan of JP but I feel like he's oversimplifying that bit at 25:00 - or it could also just come down to knowing game being the compensator.

At about 25:00 in that video he talks about the big five in regards to relationships but only for a few minutes. I agree he's oversimplifying because he could probably talk for days about these concepts. I think he is just quickly making a few examples.

Game and the big five (or another personality model) will work together and there is already a lot of overlap if you understand both. For example, PapayaTapper's "happy gene" is essentially high agreeableness and low neuroticism.

The problem with learning how to use the big five in your life is the same problem as learning game in 2018. It requires a lot of time and effort but most guys, especially younger guys, want instant solutions. So many guys want to read a forum thread or a blog post about tactics like text messaging and they think that is game. They think reading an e-book on how to use Tinder will teach them game. If a guy has some intelligence, work ethic, and a little understanding of game then he can probably read that Tinder e-book and get more bangs. However, if he wants to do things like get higher quality girls, understand women, and actually be happy with women then the time and effort required is going to be 100 or 1000 times greater than reading the text message guide and Tinder e-book.

(07-26-2018 09:55 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  I'd be interested to hear how this squares with the experience you mentioned- do/did you find yourself happier dating lower agreeability women? What was your level of game at the time you were categorizing the experience? What do you consider your tolerance for decision making to be?

My level of game and ability to use personality psychology with girls were both low in the example I mentioned before. However, I've had many other experiences since then so I can understand the difference between knowing and not knowing both concepts. I recommend both but if a guy came to me and said he could only learn one then I would suggest game for banging more girls but I would probably suggest the big five for serious relationships. Some people might get angry at that comment and that is part of the reason why I would hesitate to send a guy to the manosphere.

My agreeableness is so low that I have to understand it is my problem and something I have to adjust regardless of the type of woman I'm dating or in a relationship with. On one of the tests I scored as the 2nd least agreeable person out of 100 and I sometimes joke with the girls that Donald Trump must have taken the test because he is only person less agreeable than me. For the politically sensitive, that is not a insult whatsoever....think about it.

My strategy with girls and their level of agreeableness is that I stay away from girls who are low in agreeableness because I usually don't find them attractive or feminine and because two disagreeable people usually does lead to a lot of fighting. With girls who are moderate or high in agreeableness I communicate to them about how my personality is so they can understand it and I try to tone things down because (unlike many manosphere guys) I realize that some things are my fault and not her fault. If I ever decide to have a very serious relationship or live with a women who is high in agreeableness then I'll have to come up with a creative way to make that work. It would be difficult. I think I would need a living arrangement where we both had separate spaces and the ability to have time alone.

Post: #32

dupe

Post: #33

Birthday Cat wrote good posts explaining some ideas regarding the Big 5. But let's not forget its assessment dimension is chiefly linguistic and it's just one model, although a popular one, among many others. In fact, there are many personality trait psychologists who disagree with proposed conceptualisation of traits. Thus, it's worth to bear in mind, its descriptive, explanatory and predictive power is of limited use for various reasons, even though it can shine some light in respect of interactions with others. After all, all these traits can't be literally observed in the brain, akin to analogy of Dennett's Cartesian theatre. All these traits are epistemic conceptual fictions, they do not, in fact, exist in the sense of existence of physical matter.

Post: #34

^ So what is better?

The big five is only one model but it is the most researched and validated model according to experts like Jordan Peterson, Geoffrey Miller, and I probably talked to some guys on this forum who are very knowledgeable about this topic before I posted about it. I've used another model extensively but I'm learning the big five because many experts say it's the best model.

I've used a less accurate model and I had great successes which prove that lesser model isn't of "limited use". Why wouldn't the big five be more useful since it is a better model? I could say more about my personal experience but I don't want to talk about that on the forum. I could talk more via PM with ksbms or other guys who aren't keyboard jockeys.

In my opinion, personality psychology is the biggest opportunity for improvement on this game forum, especially in regards to relationships. I know that some people will think it is bullshit and those people are entitled to their opinions.

If somebody has something better then please share it. If nobody has anything better then do we really know as much about relationships as we think we do?

Post: #35

(08-02-2018 04:45 PM)birthday cat Wrote:  ^ So what is better?

It's only one model but it is the most researched and validated model according to experts like Jordan Peterson, Geoffrey Miller, and I probably talked to some guys on this forum who are very knowledgeable about this topic before I posted about it.

I've used another model extensively but I'm learning the big five because many experts say it's the best model.

Your theory is the big five is of "limited use" but I used a less accurate model and I had great successes which prove that lesser model isn't of "limited use".

[...]

If somebody has something better then please share it. If nobody has anything better then do we really know as much about relationships as we think we do?

All models are wrong (but some are useful). I am suggesting to be cautious of jumping to conclusions and taking them too seriously, based on some conceptualisation of some scientists and extrapolating it too much. Big five has very shaky grounds, for it's based on lexical hypothesis. There's a lot of criticism to it, but, in a nutshell, the posited traits and predispositions that people are supposed to have, are based on the vocabulary that they use (and which is prone to social bias). There are methodological and interpretive problems, not to mention that the whole Big Five inventory was designed to test specifically academic behaviour only. On top of that, general explanatory and predictive power in the realm of evidence based psychology is far from six or even five sigma we can observe in physics. In other words, it's like figuring out by smell there's fresh bread in a bakery without being able to tell what flour has been used.

Post: #36

(08-02-2018 05:33 PM)ksbms Wrote:  ...
On top of that, general explanatory and predictive power in the realm of evidence based psychology is far from six or even five sigma we can observe in physics.

How many sigmas of general explanatory or predictive power do you observe on a game forum?

How many sigmas of general explanatory or predictive power do you observe on a game forum where most of the best guys have stopped posting?

This is exactly why I don't post that much. The big five isn't perfect but it is legit as a practical tool to use in the real world. It's been tested far more extensively than all of the manosphere's theories... some of which are true and some of which can't be true because they contradict each other. The problem is that I can't talk about this topic without having to constantly defend it, however, keyboard jockeys will continuously post their bullshit theories all over the game forum and nobody wants to contradict them for fear of hurting their feelings here in the land of the "red pill"

If you disagree with me about the big five and your credentials are near the level of Jordan Peterson or Geoffrey Miller in psychology or you are close to the level of Roosh or WIA in game then PM me. If not, I'm done arguing about things that I've got too much experience with to be arguing about.

Also, you still didn't answer the question. What is better?

If somebody has something better then please share it.

Post: #37

I was at my most popular when I had a steady girlfriend from ages 17-21, was getting laid all the time, and therefore didn't care WHAT anyone thought.

I was a condescending, sardonic asshole who mocked everything and thought I was above it all because I'd grown up in NYC and listened to music no one else had ever heard. Women in college ate this up and I was unexpectedly popular.

All the while, I was nowhere near 5'11", but I was very cute. In fact, I'd reckon that my entire persona worked because I wasn't big. Had I been a big guy, my sarcasm would likely have been perceived as a lot darker and more dangerous -- and put people off.

Once the college girlfriend and I split up, I got anxious and felt adrift. I became nicer because for the first time, I felt I needed people. And I was a lot less popular that summer.

My conclusion: Women can smell fear. And it repulses them. It says "This is a weak man who will not ever have the means to protect me." "Protection" means more than the physical. It means the guy has the confidence to go out and make enough money to keep the woman and her spawn secure.

All of this happens on an unconscious level. Women don't usually "get" why they feel the way they do, and if you confront them, you're likely to get phony platitudes.

Anyway, if you have an inner confidence and don't give a fuck, some women, somewhere will get turned on. And that will transcend physicality and perhaps even out-and-out ugliness.

Post: #38

^-- Spot on... one time I was enjoying a solo late dinner at the bar of a slightly upscale West 30s no-name steakhouse + bar, when a very attractive woman sitting around the corner of the bar opened me, which led to us sharing a smoke outside, kissing, talking, etc. She was in my estimation a 40 year old childless milf type, mixed euro/near-asian, "worldly" type I enjoyed gaming in the moment but had no further interest in.

While outside, she mentioned "when you first sat down at the bar, and something was wrong with your seat, so you just grabbed the empty one near me and swapped the chairs, there was something so... rough about it, it made me notice you"...

So my ZFG, worked-late-want-a-nice-steak-at-a-bar, not-noticing-pussy, fuck let's get a non-rocky stool to sit on, moment of raw selfish dinner chair adjustment, led her to OPEN me. It turned her on, and there was some incongruity of me being young and at this older demog spot solo.

She probably went on to have a smart-yet-shy, traditional style Moroccan younger boyfriend who lets her dominate him as long as he can tell her exactly what to wear or do in bed. #who knows -- it's a NYC archetype, the still-dateable 40-something.

Meanwhile back at MY ranch, where 27 seems to be the max age, girls won't be opening me for grabbing a table setting from the table next to me "with abandon", but I understand the seeds of how No Fucks Given and Inner Confidence truly sew attraction.

Someone said a while back, guys, even good looking guys outside of the top top tier, tend to be bland invisible background scenery. You have to do something to stand out, to be noticed. It's not always something directed at her or about her at all.

[I think @Gio and others used to talk about this, like a pre-approach, how is she first noticing you before you notice her or attempt anything. Not to be "overthunk", but it does exist.]

Girls are fascinated by men "in their element" -- the way a guy's stubbled cheekbone moves up and down while he eats his baconeggancheese at the firehouse, the garage door open for passersby to see -- SOME hot young office thing is noticing and briefly imagining how her day would go if she stepped in there to get ravaged by him... [you've witnessed the start and end of my NYC romance novel ghostwriting career]...

Stupid little things.

I hear a girl once say "I loved how artistically frail he was" -- believe me the guy she's talking about wasn't smiling and asking for her opinion on his new song.

NYC kind of imposes a "don't give a fuck" and "don't fuck with me" vibe (which BTW is penetrable if the situ passes our filters).

The longer you live in a LOW AGREEABILITY CITY, the sexier you become if you're not mired in sycophantry and "hope" for attention.