men and women communicate differently [red pill philosophy]

[Age]

I hate the term ‘Mixed Signals’ or ‘Mixed Messages’. “I dunno man, she sending me mixed messages” is a common refrain among many a Blue Pill man.

More often than not there’s nothing ‘Mixed’ being communicated,

How do you, supposedly, know this?

rather it’s a failure (willful or not) to read what a woman is communicating to a man.

Is this perception of yours, perceived by you, to only be a one way failure in communicating?

For example, to you, do 'women' also fail (willfully or not) to read what a 'man' is communicating to 'women'?

The average guy tends to ‘get’ exactly what a woman has implied with her words,

Why are these women only implying things? Why not just say what they mean?

Also, what even is the so-called 'average guy', exactly?

but it takes practice to read her behavior and then more practice in self-control to apply it to his own interpretation.

So, for example, if and when, a women, (or a man), says, 'I want to go ...{somewhere}, now', and they have packed some bags and are standing and waiting by the front door, and 'the other', says, 'Okay', while grabbing the car keys and they both walk to car, and then drive to that exact place, which was stated that one wanted to go to. However, some days later it only then comes to light that actually the former really wanted to go in the completely opposite direction, and some 500 or so more miles away, then when, exactly, was 'the other' meant to 'get exactly what 'that one' was implying with their words? How much practice would it take one to read her, or his, behavior here?

And, what do you mean by 'more practice in self-control to apply 'it', (whatever the word 'it' is referring to here exactly), to his own interpretation?

1. One can only have their own interpretation. And, 'one' being male or female.

2. If this one here really wanted to go to the other place, then why not just say so? And, how, again, how much practice would it take to read this one's behavior, and get the right and correct interpretation?

When a woman goes from hot to cold and back again, THIS IS the message — she’s got buyers remorse, you’re not her first priority, she’s deliberating between you and what she perceives is a better Hypergamous prospect, you were better looking when she was drunk, etc. — the message isn’t the ‘what ifs’, the message IS her own hesitation and how her behavior manifests it.

And, when a man sees, and/or experiences, the behavior of a woman going from hot to cold, and then back again, then the man gets so-called and so-labeled 'buyers remorse' also, correct?

She was not his first priority, and he is deliberating between her and what he perceives is a much better prospect, also, right?

10 dates before sex? This IS the message. Canceling dates? Flaking? strong interest to weak interest? This IS the message.

Okay.

Women with high interest level (IL) wont confuse you.

Men with high interest levels will not play with you, and will not intend to confuse you neither.

When a woman wants to fuck you she’ll find a way to fuck you.

Which also includes rape, right?

If she’s fluctuating between being into you and then not, put her away for a while and spin other plates.

Does she explain when, and why, she is not into you, and then when she is again?

Or, does she just expect you to already know how to 'read' her, again, and 'read' her obviously very individual ways of thinking, and behaving?

If she sorts it out for herself and pursues you, then you are still playing in your frame and you maintain the value of your attention to her.

And, if not, then ...?

It’s when you patiently while away your time wondering what the magic formula is that’ll bring her around, that’s when you lean over into her frame.

Does this apply to each and every woman?

For have you not met a woman who after waiting, a while, for a man to while his time away, that they then have chosen to move along, and away?

You need her more than she needs you

Are you joking here?

and she will dictate the terms of her attentions.

Yes, some woman are actually like this.

What most guys think are ‘mixed messages’ or confusing behavior coming from a woman is simply due to their inability (or refusal) to make an accurate interpretation of why she’s behaving in such a manner.

But you, however, can 'read' and 'know' every behavior of every woman, right?

Usually this boils down to a guy getting so wrapped up in a girl that he’d rather make concessions for her behavior than see it for what it really is.

As well as the many other reasons, obviously.

In other words, it’s far easier to call it ‘mixed messages’ or fall back on the old chestnut of how fickle and random women are, when in fact it’s simply a rationale to keep themselves on the hook, so to speak, because they lack any real, viable, options with other women in their lives.

Oh, so 'this' is what 'it' is.

A woman that has a high IL in a guy has no need (and less motivation) to engage in behaviors that would compromise her status with him.

This makes sense, and speaks volumes.

Women of all ILs will test a man’s fitness (i.e. shit test), and men will pass or fail accordingly, but a test is more easily recognizable when you consider the context in which they’re delivered.

And what are some examples of the 'contexts' of some of these so-called 'tests', exactly?

More often than not women tell the complete truth with their mannerisms and behaviors, they just communicate it in a fashion that men can’t or wont understand.

So, again, why do women communicate in a fashion that men cannot, or will not understand?

What would be the REAL purpose of doing such a thing?

As a behaviorist, I’m a firm believer in the psychological principal that the only way to determine genuine motivation and/or intent is to observe the behavior of an individual.

Why?

Because people just do not say what they mean, or, because you do not trust what people say they mean?

All one need do is compare behavior and the results of it to correlate intent.

So, how one behaves, or misbehaves, and the result of what another then does, then correlates exactly to the intent of the mis/behavior of the first one, correct?

A woman will communicate vast wealths of information and truths to a man if he’s only willing to accept her behavior, not exclusively her words, as the benchmark.

So, in the example above I provided here, when one's behavior shows that they want to go somewhere, the truth and information being shown is that they really do want to go 'somewhere', but just not exactly, nor exclusively, where they said they wanted to go, correct?

He must also understand that the truth she betrays in her behavior is often not what he wants to accept.

Is the truth in men's behavior not often what women want to accept also?

Or, is it completely different under these circumstances?

We get frustrated because women communicate differently than we do.

Who and/or what does the 'we' word here refer to exactly?

"Behaviorists", "men", "children", or something else?

Women communicate covertly, men communicate overtly. Men convey information, women convey feeling.

But not necessarily by mouth, with words, correct?

And, if and when women do convey the emotional feelings, from within, with words, then these words are not to be exclusively trusted, and it is the behavior, or misbehavior, which should be continually noticed, recognized, and followed, for a wealth of information and truths, correct?

Men prioritize content and information, women prioritize context and feeling when they communicate.

Were human beings conceived this way, or was this a learned way, which has evolved into being?

Also, does what you claim here apply to transgenders, and the rest, and/or also to boys and girls as well?

One of the great obfuscations fostered by feminization in the last quarter-century is this expectation that women are every bit as rational and inclined to analytical problem solving as men.

But the actual truth is absolutely all men are rational and inclined to analytical problem solving than absolutely all women are, right?

If no, then why not, and what is the actual Truth here, exactly?

It’s the result of an equalist mentality that misguides men into believing that women communicate no differently than men.

But this is false, true?

As absolutely all men communicate the same, and which is completely different than as all women do, right?

That’s not to discount women learning to be problem solvers in their own right,

But absolutely none of them can reach the limit and/or heights of what all men can, correct?

but it flies in the face how women set about a specifically feminine form of communication.

Has it been discounted that men could learn any of the so-called 'specifically feminine form of communication', in their own right, like woman can supposedly learn to be 'problem solvers', but only in their own right?

Scientific study after study illustrating the natural capacity women have for exceptionally complex forms of communication (to the point of proving their neural pathways are wired differently) are proudly waved in by a feminized media as proof of women’s innate merits. Yet as men, we’re expected to accept that she “means what she says, and she says what she means.”

On the contrary, I think you will find that many men learn, comprehend, and understand, and very quickly, that what she says is not, exactly, what she actually means at all.

Something, by the way, that men do also, and/or as well.

More than a few women like to wear this as a badge of some kind of superiority, however it doesn’t necessarily mean that what they communicate is more important, or how they communicate it is more efficient, just that they have a greater capacity to understand nuances of communication better than do men.

In women only, or in men as well, or in both, equally?

One of the easiest illustrations of this generational gender switch is to observe the communication methods of the “strong” women the media portray in popular fiction today. How do we know she’s a strong woman? The first cue is she communicates in an overt, information centered, masculine manner.

You don’t need to be psychic to understand women’s covert communication, you need to be observant. This often requires a patience that most men simply don’t have, so they write women off as duplicitous, fickle or conniving if the name fits. Even to the Men that are observant enough, and take the needed mental notes to really see it going on around them, it seems very inefficient and irrational. And why wouldn’t it? We’re Men. Our communications are (generally) information based, deductive and rational, that’s Men’s overt communication. Blunt, to the point, solve the problem and move on to the next. Feminine communication seems insane, it is a highly dysfunctional form of communication….,to be more specific, it’s a childish form of communication. This is what children do! They say one thing and do another. they throw temper tantrums. They react emotionally to everything. Yes, they do. And more often than not, they get what they’re really after — attention. Women are crazy, but it’s a calculated crazy.

Covert communication frustrates us every bit as much as overt communication frustrates women. Our language has no art to it for them, that’s why we seem dumb or simple at best to women. We filter for information to work from, not the subtle details that make communication enjoyable for women. This is the same reason we think of feminine communication as being obfuscating, confusing, even random. The difference is that our confusion and frustration is put to their ultimate use. So long as women remain unknowable, random, irrational creatures that men can’t hope to understand (but can always excuse), they can operate unhindered towards their goals. “Silly boy, you’ll never understand women, just give up” is exactly the M.O. Once you accept this, she’s earned a lifetime of get-out-of-jail-free cards. The myth of the ‘Feminine Mystique’ and a woman’s prerogative (to change her mind) is entirely dependent upon this covert communication.

Now as Men we’ll say, “Evil, immoral, manipulative woman! Shape up and do the right thing, saying one thing then doing another makes you a hypocrite!” and of course this is our rational nature overtly making itself heard and exposing a woman’s covert communication. An appeal to morality, that’ll get her, but,..it doesn’t.

This is because women instinctively know that their sexuality is their first, best agency, and covert communication is the best method to utilize it. Appeals to morality only work in her favor, because all she need do is agree with a Man’s overt assessment of her and suddenly he thinks he’s ‘getting through to her’. As Men, we have become so conditioned by the Feminine Mystique to expect a woman to be duplicitous with us that when she suddenly leans into masculine communication forms and resorts to our own, overt communication method and agrees with us, it seems she’s had an epiphany, or a moment of clarity. “Wow, this one’s really special, ‘high quality’, and seems to get it.” That is, so long as it suits her conditions to do so. When it doesn’t, the Feminine Mystique is there to explain it all away.

Have you ever been in a social setting, maybe a party or something, with a girlfriend or even a woman you may be dating and seemingly out of the blue she says to you privately, “ooh, did you see the dirty look that bitch just gave me?!” You were right there in her physical presence, saw the girl she was talking about, yet didn’t register a thing. Women’s natural preference for covert communication is recognizable by as early as five years old. They prefer to fight in the psychological, whereas boys fight in the physical.

Within their own peer group, little girls fight for dominance with the threat of ostracization from the group. “I wont be your friend anymore if,..” is just as much a threat to a girl as “I’m gonna punch you in the face if,..” is to a boy. This dynamic becomes much more complex as girls enter puberty, adolescence and adulthood, yet they still use the same psychological mode of combat as adults. Their covert way of communicating this using innuendo, body language, appearance, sub-communications, gestures, etc. conveys far more information than our overt, all on the table, way of communicating does. It may seem more efficient to us as Men, but our method doesn’t satisfy the same purpose.

Women enjoy the communication more than the information being transferred. It’s not a problem to be solved, it’s the communication that’s primary. When a chump supplies her with everything all at once we think, yeah, the mystery is gone, he’s not a challenge anymore, why would she be interested? This is true, but the reason that intrigue is gone is because there’s no more potential for stimulating that need for communication or her imagination. Too many men buy into the lie that ‘open communication’ is the key to a good relationship and do an ‘information dump’ believing their wives or girlfriends will appreciate it. In doing so a man denies his woman the satisfaction of communicating in teasing out the information.

Nothing is more self-satisfying for a woman than for her to believe she’s figured a man out by using her mythical ‘feminine intuition’. This intuition is really just a name given to her preferred form of communication.

Lastly, I should add that women are not above using overt communication when it serves their purposes. When a woman comes out and says something in such a fashion so as to leave no margin for misinterpretation, you can bet she’s been pushed to that point out of either fear or sheer exasperation when her covert methods wont work.

“Can’t we just be friends?” is a covert rejection, “Get away from me you creep!!” is an overt rejection. When a woman opts for the overt, rest assured, she’s out of covert ideas and knows she must use men’s form of communication. This is an easy example of this, but when a woman cries on you, screams at you, or issues an ultimatum to you she is self-acknowledging that she is powerless to the point of having to come over to your way of communicating.

Likewise, men can and do master the art of covert communications as well. Great politicians, military generals, businessmen, salesmen to be sure, and of course master pickup artists all use covert communications to achieve their goals. It’s incorrect to think of covert communication as inherently dishonest or amoral, or even in a moral context. It’s a means to an end, just as overt communication is a means to an end, and that end whether decided by men or women is what’s ethical or unethical. The medium is the message.

Okay. But what is 'it' that you really want to say, and convey, here?

[nemos]

"men and women communicate differently"

My neighbor likes football (he is not a woman (neither do I)), I don't particularly (well, in general, like other team games).
Therefore, our communication could not be considered very successful either, at least in matters related to football.
I think that the basis of successful communication should be a mutually interesting topic, of course the conversation partner is not unimportant.


The research group conducted studies with a male chimpanzee, to find out which of the basic instincts dominates it, sex or hunger. During the experiment, a hungry male chimpanzee always chooses food instead of the female offered to him, so it was concluded that hunger dominates the reproductive instinct.
Later, the objectivity of the result was questioned, because during the experiment only the offered food was changed, but no one thought of changing the female.