I am a couples counsellor, so I am actually qualified to 'know'. What you're saying is completely counter to what Gottman and Sue Johnson (Emotion Focused Therapy) have been advocating for years; these views are widely accepted amongst most legitimate therapists. The behaviorists were off base in that they assumed the mind was a black box, in which was not worth examining - they were not advocates of any sort of introspection. We are not simply acting and reacting to our environments, Albert Ellis discovered this AGES ago with the development of RET, and subsequently REBT, CT and its derivatives (e.g., CBT which incorporates behaviourism with cognitive psyc).

Humans unlike MOST other animals can communicate at much higher levels, you're correct here.

The problem with most marriages crumbling is a lack of communication, but even deeper than that are entrenched attachment patterns we learned early on in life (life work of Ainsworth and Bandura). Every person has a particular attachment style they'e learned through interacting with their environment, and this pattern can be specific to each type of relationship (e.g. somebody who is ambivalent avoidant with their care giver(s) may be preoccupied anxious with a romantic figure). Attachment styles are malleable, but they can be very difficult to change; we bring them into each relationship we get into, and these attachment styles are in turn affected by the attachment style of the 'other' (credit Sue Johnson). At the heart of every interaction in a relationship is attachment. Our attachment cycles will dictate how we react/act towards our partner at any moment. The problem of focusing purely on behavior is that it doesn't give us any insight into the "why" a person does what he/she is doing. It'd be akin to treating a person with immune deficiency disorder by symptom only, not addressing the underlying issue.

Passive aggressive behavioural patterns and reward/punishment DO NOT work in real world relationships as they come out of an egoic energy and as such as power/fear based ("YOU did something I don't like so I will play on your attachment anxieties by withdrawing my love from you"). THIS is why most relationships crumble, they turn adversarial and the needs for safety and trust, among others are gone. This is why people cheat. When somebody cheats they have a NEED that's going unmet (e.g. security, intimacy, 'understanding, etc) so they venture outside of the relationship as if almost instinctually to have those needs met. So, if we develop a vocabulary of needs, for ourselves and those around us we are in a much better position to fullfill those needs.

If, on the other hand, we use behavioural techniques we are losing site of the picture - we are failing to see the forest for the trees and simply perpetuating cycles of distrust and disharmony. This is also exactly why pickup will not help you be a better partner, for the most part. What your advocating again smacks in the face of contemporary research and is based on what we knew of behaviourism some 2-3 decades ago, which has since changed (thankfully).

I can illustrate my point using REBT which postulates the idea that A does NOT cause C, but rather A influences B (belief) which then in turn causes C (Consequence, usually a behavior, or emotional response). Behaviorists would discredit there being any B (belief) between the two. They'd argue, for example, that "I failed a test because I didn't study" which doesn't really give you much information.

The B (Belief) in such a situation may be "I am stupid, therefore there's no point even trying to study" which tells us a lot more about the motivation, or the 'antecedent' beyond A (Activating event/trigger = failing the test).

The funny thing about REBT is that its founder, Albert Ellis, developed initially to pickup girls. So you can credit him as one of the early contemporary pickup artists/founding fathers of cognitive psychology.

I'll use REBT (ABCDE model) for pickup to further elucidate things:

A - Activating event/Trigger
B - Belief
C - Consequence (emotional and/or behavioural)

D - Disputing the belief
E - new Emotion


So let's say the A (Activating event) is you're out in public, say at Starbucks and you see a hottie you want to open.

Now let's just imagine your B (Belief) = "I am not good looking enough, I shouldn't say a word I'll only embarrass myself"

C(consequence) = Behavor; self-downing ("I m a loser, I'll never procreate" which in itself can become a new A - activating event/trigger), withdrawing, being easily agitated etc. Emotions: depressed, anxious, angry with one's self etc

D - Disputing the B (Belief) - So, "I'm not good looking enough, I will never procreate"
- we can dispute this possibly through: "I've had good looking women interested in me in the past, and even dated
a few", "I never approach anyway so I have no way of knowing", "women are often attracted more to intangibles such as personality attributes like humor, confidence etc", you get the idea

E - New Effect/Emotion after adopting the new belief we've chosen (you actually choose a new, ADAPTIVE belief and field test it like a scientist would). So maybe we try "I am an interesting person who has lots of value to share with others" and the guy goes out there and creates new reference points by adopting or trying-on this new belief (which eventually will carve out a new pathway and become habitual replacing the old defunct Belief).

Not the most eloquent example, but hopefully you get the jist of it.

Hellbound, lets look at your example:

"In humans, it's the same. If you go when the stoplight says red, you'll get fined for a traffic violation. No talk, just action. If you fucked a girl real good, she'll cook you a nice breakfast. You don't even need to ask her to do the cooking for you."

So we fucked that girl good and she cooked us breakfast. Is there not a B (belief) at work here in her mind that's leading to the behavior/action (cooking us a nice meal)?

This is the issue, behaviourism focuses on cause and consequence, leaving the "why" (belief) out of the equation. This is why most behaviourist techniques have been largely abandoned in therapy UNLESS trying to modify behavior (which will always involve a cognitive component UNLESS the person has some sort of defect that they cannot learn and need a reward/punishment system to prevent injury such as with somebody who is severely autistic).


Why do you think the vast majority of addicts quite their addictions themselves without ANY intervention? Gene Haymen will tell you what a lot of addictions specialists and clinicians have known for years; addicts quit their addictions when the consequences get too dire and for this to happen, something at the belief value has changed.

Not going to get into the pysch debate, but really...is there any way the OP can train with punishment rewards or whatever his gf to quit smoking or getting drunk after 5 months? Is there anything he can do, give or takeaway that would outweigh her need to smoke?

Nope.

A potential outcome is that she quits to keep him happy for a short while, but she's doing it out of the wrong energy and will resent him for it. Eventually they'll both pay the price and she'll feel he's been controlling towards her and hold him responsible for the negative feelings she's experiencing.

NEVER do anything for somebody, or accepting ANYTHING from someone out of obligation. Both of you will pay the price for it later. This is something Marshall Rosenberg talks about at length.

Done that to good effect with a takeaway. She never smoked and drunk as a habit ever since.

_________________
Approach. Open. Escalate. Isolate

Here are my two essential rules on texting that will save you tons of time and money:

general-questions/topic137931.html

Hey bro. Thank you for this great effort. Much respect.

I'll see what I can do to come up with a decent post to reciprocate the great value you placed on the table here.

_________________
Approach. Open. Escalate. Isolate

Here are my two essential rules on texting that will save you tons of time and money:

general-questions/topic137931.html

Checkout Sue Johnson's Hold Me Tight. Her entire EFT platform is built upon the idea that beneath all relationship issues are threats to attachment. It's really mind blowing stuff, she gets a lot into the pursuer and withdrawer and how the roles can change between partners, as well as how to address each style. I remember with my ex she was prototypically ambivalent avoidant, whereas my style was very much preoccupied anxious.

Ambivalent avoidant wants to feel deep meaningful connections to others but is too fearful to be vulnerable. They'll actually have adverse reactions to people who try to connect to them; they will often withdraw (PULL). Preoccupied anxious types (how I was in that relationship) similarly have an inherent need to connect to others; they on the other hand aren't afraid at all of being vulnerable, but the downside is they may become so with people who aren't particularly healthy for them. When there's upset in the relationship, the preoccupied anxious type will try to 'fix' or rectify things by forging an even deeper connection, they will still be vulnerable and want to work on the situation whereas the Ambivalent avoidant type finds this quite intolerable and in fact a threat to their well being so they'll withdraw. Very toxic PUSH/PULL dance. Very interesting how different attachment styles mesh together. Ideally you'd have somebody with a secure attachment but typically secure attachment types seek others who have that default of being securely attached.

Diff attachment styles have different strategies for having needs met. Needs are universal the world over, but my strategy for safety in a relationship may look quite different from yours. That's where I was kinda segwaying into needs and Marshall Rosenberg's Non Violent Communication. Specifially how we need to develop a stronger needs vocablularly and learn to HEAR the needs behind what the other is saying. According to Rosenberg once we hear the need beneath what the person is saying, NEVER giving credence to what they THINK of you, we will no longer hear any criticism, evaluations, or judgments - only what Rosenberg calls the "tragic expression of unmet needs".

So if, for example, you've come home way past what your gf believes is a respectable hour and she chastises you, calling you a jerk, telling you that you're up to no good, etc..etc.. just lambasting you. The idea is to listen for the unmet need (it's ALWAYS there beneath the surface), which may possibly be the need for closeness (maybe she missed the affection and really needed it that night), or consistency (you've broken the pattern and taken her off guard), or security (you failed to communicate with her and she had no idea what was happening). Whatever the need or needs were, the point is we train ourselves to HEAR the need rather than get caught up in WHAT the person is saying/thinks of us in that moment. Needs will also change from moment to moment and of course the same needs will come up again and again. The point is to HEAR needs from other people, and doing so we are inclined to be RESPONSIVE and not reactive, it's not really a jedi mind trick but likely the closest thing to it:) It does take a lot of practice particularly with those we are closest with since we're so easily triggered and therefore challenging to use this different style of communication.

I would tend to argue that relationships fall apart because people are not in 'love' in the clinical sense or the emotional sense. A lot of relationships are missing something, and pillars of love are well expounded upon. That is another issue.

I think we can all recognize that research does conflict, and varies a lot between 'experts' which is why we hav multiple view points for seduction. Nothing can be proven as empirical. Take everything you read and do with a grain of salt. Just because my opinion is formulated by research I have come across and my real life experiences, does not mean it is the end all be all. It is and can be right or wrong depending on the variables and vantage points.

That is why we test and share our results. And thus, many schools of Game exist.

_________________
Check out our website to get a FREE eBook on how to get good with women plus loads of FREE information on how to meet and Seduce women!

How are you even operationalizing "love"?

It is pretty much how I make a living....

The short synopsis, which I put on my blog, is the Triangular Theory of Love, with Freud's Ego Ideal, and Imago Theory, for starters.

After doing a lot of studying into the subject, and practice, you see patterns about PUA tactics and what 'love' is, in a clinical sense at least. That is a good road map.

A couple PUA's have put out Products on Love. I never took them or purchased them, but I have been out with guys who did and they are close to what I do, I just put more emphasis on some steps in Pick Up.

A lot of Deep Comfort, emphasis on some PUA tactics, and such gets the 'love' cycle going. I am talking, 'I can't live without you', stalker level of love.

It is not something I teach after a boot camp. But my Bootcamps and instruction does revolve around some principles of Game I find of high utility and efficacy for 'love'. My teaching builds upon itself, so when you are ready to settle down, are not 'crazy', jaded, or trying to hurt women, I roll out my love theory.

Tactically, one huge thing guys need to do more of is Timebridging, more framing, more Qualification and opening themselves up more. These are a couple holes I find in all 'community' guys and helps the 'love' process.

Once you dig deep like I did, and clearly with your great and in depth posts you are fully capable of doing, you will read theories of love and some of the 'tactics' you know stick out to some of the principles of 'love'.

A lot of theories are expansions of the Triangular Theory of Love. Although they influenced me and how I run it, it muddles the water.

I apologize for getting off track here. But yes, it is operational. This is not some armchair or forum ego stroking or theorizing. This is what I call the 'Dark Side' of Game. I am not claiming I am some magic guru, anyone can get some form of it operational if they put the time it. The big problem is it does not launch if you do not have the fundamentals of Game mastered, because many of the same tactics we cite so much intertwine with what psychologists call 'love' that it is almost a slap in the face when you see it. Rolling it out in field is a bit more challenging, but if you look at Mystery Method's original M3 model, you see that it DOES hit many factors and pillars of many theories of love, and because of this, 'proper Game' with authenticity tends to hit the love feeling.

I hope my dancing around the topic to not reveal my good stuff answered your question.

_________________
Check out our website to get a FREE eBook on how to get good with women plus loads of FREE information on how to meet and Seduce women!

You're right, you didn't answer my question. Looks like you're selling a bunch of snake oil based on pseudoscience. If I had a dime for every time I've encountered this I'd be wealthy beyond belief. it also seems as though you don't quite understand what "operationalize" means, a simple google search would have sufficed in y0our case.

Good luck.

Removing content

_________________
Check out our website to get a FREE eBook on how to get good with women plus loads of FREE information on how to meet and Seduce women!

^^

No thanks, I know quackery when I see it. Not worth my time.

Have a good evening though.