And we're back. Well, almost.
This post is not directed to any one person. However, it has been heavily extended as Goldenboy has asked for an understanding of how I think. He has done so twice, openly and even questioned his own understanding - something I have never seen from another poster here, ever. So I guess it’s up to him how many times he wants to read this post.
It turns out, he is in luck. I had been wrestling with the idea of providing clarity to other assumptions made in this thread. I resolved in my mind to do just one, otherwise the whole thing could take too long and open up another one of these conversations, which is great, but will likely involve me writing a book to respond to each statement. Although this would be much needed tonic for the forum, it is overdue tonic which could have been addressed with open minded communication at any point in the last decade. So, if you would like to take a sip....
Some points may involve what look like harsh criticism. It is not my intention to come across that way, but I don't know if I have the linguistic skills to be able to deliver it in a totally contemplative perspective. If this is the case, simply ignore this, I'm just giving my own opinion. No one has to listen to my views or come to a realisation about them. If I wanted to, I could tie the forum into knots. This post does not intend to do this and has actively refrained from doing so. However, going through old posts has not been easy. It seems I let everybody off the hook because I never joined the forum to heap fire on people.
From the very beginning I have always said that I believe in signposts, no specific one thing. Even if there was one, I believe in signposting my way there. I believe that the forum claims to believe something similar, but in practice, does something else. I am also mindful that I might be one of the more vocal posters and there might be others who are more quieter.
I say the above with a lot of respect for the structure of the forum and, in a way, some of the information that can be gleamed from it.
With that said, I think this example would go a little of the way of addressing a point along with one or two of the other points indirectly. Adding clarity on this will perhaps signpost a wider position. This will hopefully help some reading my posts gaging for clues. Often they are tucked away. Often I have to anyway. I know of one poster from ages ago who spotted them. Other people have also come looking. I find that this happens when they finally realise that all this talk about a matrix actually
is an analogy.
Anyway, the comment on my quote here
| Scarf wrote: * | Sun Apr 27, 2025 11:30 am |
Before I say anything, it is worth saying that in recent times, I have become reluctant to give away all the stuff I had to work so hard for to attain. Can't say for sure why this is, but there is no doubt that this is partly because there are men who have started podcasts regarding women, have made millions and have approximately 20% of the minimum required knowledge. I find this to be scandalous as a lot of problems, I believe, are caused by men giving other men poor advice.
If you feel it is not for this forum and you are reluctant to give it away....
is marginally out of context. In fact, just by itself, it's entirely out of context. Even though the assumption being made from it is still a reasonable conclusion.
I'd like to re-establish the original context though. Mainly, to make the point that when it comes to this subject especially, almost everything is about fine margins. I can’t really think of anywhere it is not. It is also one of the things people (regular people) who are investigating this area seem to miss. They don't seem to even be interested in it.
The reason I said this
| Scarf wrote: * | Sun Apr 27, 2025 11:30 am |
Before I say anything, it is worth saying that in recent times, I have become reluctant to give away all the stuff I had to work so hard for to attain. Can't say for sure why this is, but there is no doubt that this is partly because there are men who have started podcasts regarding women, have made millions and have approximately 20% of the minimum required knowledge. I find this to be scandalous as a lot of problems, I believe, are caused by men giving other men poor advice.
was because Goldenboy had said this:
I do agree with you on the general idea of it (Hoe Math has big blindspots).
I originally had thought he could see one or two of the things I was going to list, or at least the way I would list it. It was really an apology. To say to him, 'look, I can’t really tell you everything, here's some of the stuff'.
I really only ever delivered half of my analysis. There are other things in Fraud_Math's post that I can see that go beyond just his words. Although I listed some of his live thoughts as he was writing…something I did do…the other stuff, I'd say, is difficult to openly state as it is more delicately poised information.
I also left out analysis which I thought the forum would have difficulty processing. For example, it is obviously the case that value exchanges do exist in society, but to take this one tier explanation and singularly apply it to such a complex form of human interaction is highly optimistic. But it’s optimism that pays for him, because basic thinkers would likely look at an explanation like that and think it makes enough logical sense. It would appeal to those with simplistic inclinations and they are the majority in any case. With his influence, he can quickly spread his made-up-on-the-spot content. The online punters will consume that content because it meets their budget requirements. They won’t care that the source of that content is his arse. They especially won't realise that this 'free' 'content' is something he gets paid to produce. What an economic climate to live in now. Costs nothing to make. Costs nothing to consume. Still makes money somehow. Punters also won’t realise that blind acceptance of unvetted ‘wisdom’ of an unvetted ‘expert’ could stunt their learning or affect their minds long term. Of all things, I find that this is the least realised. I bet they don’t even know whose job it is to do the vetting.
It is amazing that someone can simply turn up, not show his face, have no insight, not speak to a live audience and purport himself as some kind of qualified speaker on interpersonal relationships. I suppose when you do it in such an assured fashion, people follow. Confidence (and in this case, backlash anger) is the thing that people respond to best it seems. Well that… and drawings. High quality critical analysis with combined with evidence gathering really does need to take a back seat to some nice drawings. That’s a given.
I don’t want these types of people to be armed with information about their stupidity. I want them to carry it on. I want to see what happens. Why should I correct them? When did I sign up for that job? I have never even done it even on this forum. No doubt, any evidence based negation is information that would be useful to
him. Enlightening someone on their weak positions can make these people stronger. I'm certain my post has made its way to him somehow. I think you won't see such a miscalculation from him a second time. He'll take care in future not to get caught out so easily. He'll cover his fraud even more. I also wonder how many blatant pieces of fraudulent information audiences will swallow before they even properly consider what they are being told. It tells me something about them too.
I learnt to avoid these types of discussions here. I learnt very quickly that the forum has its own ideas of what it considers expertise, what it considers evidence, what it considers fact. I learnt it also cannot differentiate one from the other. I gave up on the main section of the forum a long time ago. I started popping back in for requested responses and also because the structure allows you to talk about other things making this forum interesting. As for the prime subject issue, I had delicately mentioned in 2019 that the eye was coming off the ball in wider society - and that this forum never even seemed to be aware that a ball was in play:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=781&start=40
As if like an illustration, two messages later, the next person completely misses the point, then makes an assumption based on their preconceived or made-up-on-the-spot notions.
I only made that post after a direct enquiry was made to me. A typical occurrence. Having totally given up expecting the forum to understand what I say, I tend to keep faith in just the person who asked. At this forum, It seems that people can only understand me when they ask for my input. If I offer the information, I couldn’t get them to understand it if I paid them. I know this is a well known general life based occurrence, but it’s particularly true here. My response to Goldenboy was as a result of him having asked specifically for my view. From what I could see, he understood it very well at the time. Not sure about others really. It’s hard to say.
Let's be honest; this forum never gave any of the past trainers a chance. It certainly did not give them any partial benefit of doubt. However, it seems that the forum is easily prepared to make exceptions for internet experts with more red flags than an arms dealer. That means that it went from totally repudiating instructors from the past who documented their work, to championing obvious present-day frauds who document their drawings. Given that this is the case, it would only be logical to conclude that the forum has gone backwards. I say ‘backwards’ not because it was right the first time, but after so much time spent apparently learning about human behaviour, it could not spot a realtime keyboard jockey in front of its face. This brings forth the question; what have you all been doing for the past ten years? I continuously read about ‘valuable information’ on this forum. I’d like to know now, what is this valuable information that you keep referring to? Where is it? Why is it valuable? What have you learnt from it? Because from the skies of the southern side of Hertfordshire, it doesn’t look like much learning has taken place.
In the early beginnings of the community, you might be aware that they turned to evolutionary psychology as a starting source. I wonder if it ever occurred to anyone ever why they picked evolutionary psychology. There are many modules in psychology; cognitive, developmental, physiological, individual differences, the psychology of women….plenty to choose from. Why pick evolutionary? This was a niche within a niche. It’s actually a niche of the physiological one. So why that one? Why didn’t they pick the obvious one? Why didn’t they pick social? - or the psychology of women? I’ll tell you why. Luckily, I have an actual degree in psychology and dedicated years to it before turning to alternative considerations. When I first started my degree, Triple H standing in the middle of the ring addressing the crowd got me through the first year. I learnt to address large crowds through what he did. I never learnt public speaking through psychology. I learnt it through wrestling. My presentation skills were impressive. In fact, it had caught the attention of some girls.
In September of my second year, I walked into one of my early classes to take one of the strands of social psychology; relationship psychology.
‘Good’, I thought. ‘Finally I might learn something’.
I walked in to the lecture theatre and sat on the right hand side, slightly centre, in the front row. They gave us handouts. White sheets of paper, note taking spaces at the side of some hand drawn pictures. They depicted how relationships were formed. The first picture was one of a man and a woman having a drink. The second picture was the same man and woman now having dinner. I can’t remember the rest. I assume the rest of the pictures led to a marriage or something. I’m not even sure I glanced at them that much. I was already floored. ‘That’s it?’ I thought. ‘Where is the rest of it? An entire discipline with a module and sub-module….and that’s what we are going to get?’ No further research into the area had actually been done. In fact, almost no research at all. A few conclusions had also been reached. I don’t remember them all now, but I remember one; frequency of interaction. The theory that the more time you spend around someone, the more likely you are to end up with them. That’s right. Friend-zoning yourself is actually prescribed by Psychology.
In an upcoming Research Methods class, it wasn’t that difficult to figure out an original piece of research. I was going to conduct research where, clearly, nothing had been done.
“We can do relationships” I said to Mickey and Kelly. “There isn’t much research there. We can do some qualitative research and interview a series of individuals and couples”. It was difficult to disagree with this proposition. Nobody protested. Over the next few weeks we took the interviews and drew them up. One person I interviewed was a highly respected lecturer at an internationally recognised educational institute. She was married with two kids. She told me that, as far she was concerned, she had the freedom to leave her relationship anytime.
When everyone gathered their research together, I started analysing the data. I went through every interview. There was one which struck me. An off-sentence.
‘Suddenly this girl zipped up from behind the sofa’.
This sentence is as out of context here as it was on my screen back then.
“What’s this?”
“What’s what?” said Mickey.
“This line about zipped up from the sofa. What is that?”
“Oh. Yeah. This was one of Kelly’s interviews. He said something inappropriate like ‘the first time I fucked her’ or something. She had to change it”.
The original paragraphs had gone. It had been replaced. It had been replaced for the sake of appropriateness. We were researching the entanglement of two people and its researchers - my researchers - took out a reference to a critical part of the very thing we were researching in the name of
appropriateness.
A year later, I took the Psychology of Women. ‘There might be something in that’, I thought. I wasn’t expecting much, but maybe some modicum of information. On a cold November evening, I took the stairs to the fifth floor. Through the hallway and into the mini classroom to take one of the classes. Of all modules, it was the least popular one. It was attended by about 15 people. I was one of two males. In case you are wondering what the other one was like, he referred to himself as a ‘feminist’ in one of the classes. So there you are. If I could summarise the entirety of the class, then I could do so with one anecdote. It is one of the first things they teach you in the class actually. That ‘if a woman sleeps with a lot of men, then she is called a slut, but if a man sleeps with a lot of women, he is seen as a stud’. This apparent injustice was basically the central talking point in the entirety of the year long class. All considerations and findings seemed to come from this one quote.
On one of these nights, one of the other lecturers, Chantelle, took the class. Chantelle was a relatively young, relatively attractive, short haired blonde woman. She was slightly theatrically stylish in the way she spoke. She did this intentionally. She sat in the middle of the class as read some kind of excerpt.
She was talking about women’s rights to equality, about working and making money and women’s relationship to men.
“I don’t care” she said, in her intentionally theatrical way.
“Take me up in your helicopter!”.
A laugh. A very womanly laugh, from the audience.
“Take me into your mansion!”
Another laugh from the audience. A sustained laugh.
“Take me on holiday!”
Another laugh. Sustained.
It kept going. I wasn’t sure if the laughter was real or not. I tried my best to find something funny about what was being said. I had trouble, despite the effort. I wonder if the feminist man laughed. My concerns were now on its way to genuine suspicion. At the time, it never got there. It never reached genuine suspicion. At the time.
One evening, we had to tackle this question again about a woman who sleeps with many men being called a slut, whilst men were not. Why would such a thing occur? Everybody had to give an explanation going around the room. I racked my brain going through every piece of psychological research. I found just one answer.
“Through the eyes of evolutionary psychology” I said “A man wants to spread his seed as far as possible, but a woman only has one egg at a time, so that’s probably why”.
My perfectly placed text book analysis was only considered just about acceptable to the classroom even though I had used a biological theory. I was surprised by the lukewarm reaction. It was really the only academically plausible answer. I had already researched in detail other possibilities and there was nothing else I could find.
A couple of years later, having found my way into the community areas, mostly through life events, I noticed that they too had preliminary cited the same areas of evolutionary psychology I had cited in class. It was clear that they had gone through an evidence gathering stage. Obviously, it had to be gathered from somewhere. So when I see posts talking about the ‘worst thing ever taught’, people might want to consider the merits of a classical education first. Anyway, due to the lack of evidence, they had to theorise using the minimalistic research available, then produce new data. Then theorise. The lack of research meant if they wanted any, they would have to go out and do it themselves. And they did. This was a first. It was all voluntary too. They did not need to write a rationale. They did not need to apply for funding. They did not need to be paid. They used themselves as vessels to go out meet people and try and progress an interaction. They would then, wilfully using their own time, report back with their experiences and findings either in person or on internet forums. Each person would do this. They used a term not too far off either - the proper psychological term is actually ‘field experiments’. The amount of information gathered and exchanged in such a short period of time was vast. Without much hesitation, I volunteered myself as well, both to test my own theories, that of others and see what my own findings would be.
After, when I tried to put these thoughts and conclusions from experiences together on a forum or two, because that's what I actually thought the forums were for, or of I pointed to others that had done so, these writings would be met with vitriol. I found this confusing. Nothing I had said was particularly controversial. Why would people on an internet forum whose sole purpose was to gather and exchange information simply refuse that very information? This was information for work put in independently and voluntarily that the academic institutions had never done and likely would never do. I came to understand that the reason for this was due to some kind of moralistic standpoint. Apparently, the people who had taken the time and had made the effort had done so for intentions that they themselves would never have or ever had. Apparently, they just happened to register on a forum that discussed the patterns of sexually motivated behaviour by coincidence. They also knew, for a categorical fact, that the entirety of the documented reporting which had taken place over several years had all been done in the name of attempting to entice a sexual encounter and no other reason other than that one thing. Aside from being statistically impossible, what difference would it really make to the reporting? Even if it was the case, some kind of motivation would be needed to for people to put their own time in to doing it. It would not have come about otherwise. But now, the people apparently seeking gainful knowledge would refuse gathered data on the topic itself.
As it turns out, they had a different method. They were going to self-appoint themselves a chosen guru and then proceed to follow everything he said. Anything their chosen guru did not explicitly subscribe to was to be dismissed, torched in a bonfire and actively attacked where possible. The one thing they weren’t going to do was consider gathered evidence. Coincidentally, their chosen guru was the very same one whose forums they registered to.
‘Oh my God’, I thought, ‘these people are just going to ignore raw data’.
Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
It was recently gathered data too.
It took me some time before I was willing to accept that this is what they were doing. Even though nobody had asked anyone to draw the same conclusions or subscribe to the same theories, they were not the only ones. In fact, each forum thought they were morally superior than the other one. Each one ignoring others' data in the name of
appropriateness.
Funnily enough, those shouting about morality never seemed to voluntarily pass up a sexual opportunity (should they even get a chance to) themselves. It was other people’s opportunities that was the problem. It was other people’s documenting that was the problem. Never their own. I noticed people love the mirror analogy, just as long as the mirror itself is pointed outwards.
Despite participants apparently wanting information that may give them insight in this obviously specific area, it is almost like they begrudgingly acknowledged that the learning was a speciality, without actually wanting to treat it like a discipline. There could be several reasons for this; the guru said something to make them think not to do it and god forbid they go against him, they wanted to appear moralistic, they might not have wanted to do the work (which would involve reading or actually meeting new people), they were not anywhere near as interested in the topic matter as they think they were..... I genuinely could rearrange and mix the above listed reasons and come up with new ones. Now, you might be reading this and thinking all this sounds a little familiar. Well, if you are one such person and, for whatever reason, you think that it is right to not take this subject matter as a discipline, especially if you want to learn about it, because you think it's wrong or something... that's fine. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Just two things though; one, it might be worth considering what this may do to your intended learning and two; you might want to consider that the other side
most definitely do see
you as a discipline. They see it so swiftly that the consideration of
you is part of everyday conversation which you probably don't hear, tactics of dealing with
you are acted out in films you don't watch, training on how to deal with
you is delivered on island based reality shows you don't care about, weighted consideration of the way
you portray yourself is analysed through books you don't read, the technical advice of how to handle
you situation to situation are exchanged in magazines you don't read. You think you have a guru. They have one in each magazine. Actual behavioural research is slanted so that
you somehow come out as the problem,
you are objectified and humiliated on internationally recognised prime time shows you are just barely aware of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CNq11hWrzE
you are subject to legislation and policy you have never heard of
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/staring-on-t ... behaviour/
you are not even a desired birth
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025 ... ls-to-boys /
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/ ... aving-boys
The subject of
you is updated like a worldwide developers conference. Its most recent iteration is information sharing through mini-videos. The subject of
you is big business. The subject of
you is biased academic research. The subject of
you is biased legislation. The subject of
you is unofficially documented advanced applied psychology. Unofficial. Documented. Advanced. But you have a conscience about considering independently sourced evidence because of who gathered it or the way it might have been gathered and you think because you read one post, from one expert, off one forum, you 'see' the 'social' 'matrix'? Maybe you are right. However, the other side are very clear on what you can see. They talk about it all the time. They think about it all the time.
This was why the early advocates picked evolutionary psychology. They started from the beginning - because they had to.
The progressed information is now no longer available for the most part, which means newcomers (or indeed latecomers) no longer can access it. In my opinion, anybody looking into the area with interest would need to look at the developmental part of the conversation. If someone has a need to look into the area, they would probably need the specific detail. I don't see how you bridge the gap otherwise. You can see it from the very second the candle was blown out, as it resulted in a needs deficit.
I'm unclear on how big that deficit is, but its replacement bus service has arrived and it is packed full of its own people like
Register
Login
FAQ
Search
