Quote:
Fin,
You have ways to go but the good news is that you have many years to do this. Your last post is a classic demonstration of insecurity. Read it for yourself again. . . and work on in it if you want to. Read Madal's post as a reference point. Recognize any differences?
Back to topic:
Quote:
8. If you really want to know my definition of power, in a human context, it is anything that allows us to manipulate our surroundings, social connections, finance, physical ability to implement our will, religious high-ground, ability to perssuade, The ability to influence PR.
The key word here is "manipulate" as this is the major difference between strength (which is the
capacity to manipulate) and power. (capacity in MOTION)
Can money help you implement your will or not? Does it or does it not have ability to persuade? Does money influence? Does money manipulate surroundings or not? Thus Money is not some stagnant "sign" that you have power. Money IS power.
Thus when you typed:
Quote:
"Game" Is all about power.
You are essentially agreeing that money has a lot more influence on our game than you're willing to admit.
*You're in school: consider a class in economics . . . really . . . those all inclusive economics classes designed for arts majors will at least cover history of fiat money and value systems)
1. Thank you for clearing the power up. Is that a technical definition if so, in what context, sociologically or economically?
Money I would put it at most it is A FORM of power, but I think to say it IS power, is to put too much emphasise on money, that is healthy for someone trying to learn PU. (I am a fan of balance)
Money in contemporary western society is a neccesity, if you don't have it, it shuts alot of doors. That can't be ignored.
2. Similarly someone who has money and looks, can still be a tottaly repugnant person. I had ZERO problems with 90% of what you posted, I was simply disagreeing with certain under and over tones that the O.P. held. I felt that his position was that of someone who has dumped his problems onto three simple factors. It seemed very, THIS WILL GET YOU WOMEN EVERYTHING ELSE IS OBSOLETE! His definition of power and of status seemed to revolve heavily around finance. I'm not sayng that is wrong, I'm just saying their are other ways in which power and attraction can be generated.
3. Game is all about power, admittedly that's a wide brush but the semantic meaning behind it remain the same, pre-selection, social proof, "alpha behaviour", leader of men. They are just ways to demonstrate status, authority and power "admittedly primarily in a social context.
4. I'm not actually in school, I just took psychology becuase I wanted to expand my knowledge, I enjoyed the scraps and bits and peices I got here and wanted to try my hand at it in a more academic fashion. I've enjoyed it so far, so I've decided to run with it in uni.
I feel fairy clued up on the way the economy runs, wouldn't what your talking about in the economics class come under "social philosiphy"?
5. Me and Madals often are on msn while posting here, (seeing as we generally hold very similar idea's about PU, we often discuss each others posts, and talk about on going threads) both of us were completely perplexed as to why your attack campaign was launched with such vigor. And both of us could not understand why the attack campaign had been launched in the first place when neither of us really disagreed with you in any major form.
I appreciate that you've toned down your post in its aggressiveness, but I would wonder... you've flamed me just as hard as adam why the change in tone towards him now? I honestly can't see it.
The main difference I can see is bullet points, I use bullet points becuase it allows me to make several "points" which are clear and unmissable. As oppossed to a full out rant like paragraph post, where things can be misinterpreted and blurred.
Still look how much time you spend critising your intellectual opponenets and assuming (or claiming to understand) their stances, background, views etc.
Then compare that to other debates that have been had on this forum. Your maybe the 3rd person in all my time here, who I have ever seen resort to personnal attacks as a serious mode for conveying a message.
You remind me a bit of a fundamental christian I used to debate with on a forum.
She could spend all day tellling others how we were all ignorant or blind, or terrified of the lord, or angry at jesus, or conspiring with science against the forces of purity.
When asked why she drew those types of conclusions.
"Bah! Just look at your last post, It SMACKS of ignorance and fear of christ!"
Ask her to be specefic... it was all too often ignored. Care to highlight the points where we were being ignorant and insecure? As blatant as they are too you, I find them difficult to pin point.
I use madals as an example to further question your "reads" your attitude to him seems to have changed, dramatically, although you do claim now to have agreed with the majority of his posting. Your initial "reads" of his character lumped him with me as an "insecure little schoolkid" (I'm not too certain of the specefic title we were given) Main jist was that we were ignorant wrapped up in "the community" ( a couple of refrences to MM were made) made assumptions about things we had no experience in and were insecure.
Why was your intial read of Madals incorrect?