So to explain things, in my relationships I apply what is called a variable-ratio reward schedule. This just means that I reward my girlfriends randomly and most of the times give them nothing. This is well known to hack people's psychology and make them do whatever you are training to do (in this case staying with me) for longer. However, my own research has also shown that if you throw in a negative reward into the mix that happens every so often in between positive rewards, the psychological effect is even stronger.
Well, today I wanted to give one of those as it had been a while. I decided that my goal would be to make her cry, and I told her very horrible things and I saw her being sadder than I ever see her, but she didn't cry. Is this normal? I thought girls cried a lot but this made me remember that I have not seen my girlfriend cry in a very long time. What does this mean?
I thought I had explained it well, sorry. Maybe you've heard of the concept of a Skinner box? It's basically that but with a few changes. Imagine that you have a monkey in a cage and you give the monkey a button. 2/10 times when he presses the button he gets a banana. 1/10 times he presses the button he gets an electric shock, and 7/10 times he presses the button he gets nothing.
it means youre an asshole for making your loved one cry
it also means youre willingly manipulatinng her and that youre an evil fuck
Ian Cook
The fuck would you do that?
Dominic Gutierrez
Calm down, that's not what it means.
If means she has no context to understand how she actually feels. Congrats, you misread all the NLP literature and now you have a puppet you don't understand.
Angel Morales
Because it works. Please read the article on why the variable-reward schedule works. I also added a negative reward because of data I have on domestic violence. Basically, women tend to stay and even love men who abuse them. It even has a name: Stockholm syndrome. What I realized is that the men that abuse their wives are not really intellectuals, just violent people. So what I added is a perfect probabilistic distribution of positive/negative/neutral reward. I even keep an excel spreadsheet with a history of which rewards I've given my girlfriend, and I always check that I'm balancing out the probabilities. It works wonders.
It's like love, but mathematically proven to work.
Elijah Jones
He saw it in that one episode of The Big Bang Theory, Sheldon uses it to train Penny. Although in OP's case I'm pretty sure it doesn't have the intended effect, considering that life isn't a sitcom and plenty of other dudes are happy to constantly throw "rewards" her way, kek.
Sebastian Sanders
I, unfortunately, have the misfortune of having watched that. If I remember correctly, he only gave her rewards. That is the most basic Skinner box that exists, and that doesn't actually work. I'm doing the real deal with multidimensional features and statistical analysis.
Samuel Bailey
>If means she has no context to understand how she actually feels. Congrats, you misread all the NLP literature and now you have a puppet you don't understand.
You think so? Are saying that I have trained a woman not to cry? Damn, that's even better. I'll be researching that idea. But if you think I misread the literature, you are wrong. 27/29 of my previous relationships (since I started using this method) lasted all the way until I decided to break them up. This is a success ratio higher than anyone I know. My method's results are enough to be accepted in a psychology journal, but obviously I can't publish any of this. It's just for my own safety.
Isaiah Richardson
>that's even better No it's not, because you didn't train her not to cry.
She quite literally doesn't know what's happening. Her perception of your personality doesn't exist. It's just a long protracted confusion induction, no different from any other form of hypnosis. It's not having the effects you think it's having, it's merely resulting in observations consistent with your prediction. Trying to use Occam's razor on a system that literally creates hidden variables 24/7 is the most fallacious act that can possibly be conceived.
I didn't say you didn't read and apply the literature. I said you didn't understand its purpose.
Liam Myers
How would publishing this threaten your safety?
Daniel Collins
Right. Running someone over works as well, but why would you do it?
Nolan Scott
No, I use this research for my own safety. It keeps women on my side. I can't publish it because of ethics.
Liam Cook
>I didn't say you didn't read and apply the literature. I said you didn't understand its purpose. I understand what you are saying but if I started using this to obtain a specific goal (train women to want to be with me) and then obtained that goal then the data is on my side. The only way I could be wrong is if you think I got what I wanted out of pure luck, which I doubt.
Jose Rivera
What do you mean why? Because it is, as far as I know, the optimal dating strategy. If you are playing a game, why would you play any strategy other than the optimal strategy? I mean, assuming you want to win. If you want to lose then sure, use some random strategy.
Chase Diaz
Incomplete is never wrong.
Angel Hill
holy fuck that's interesting can you please share some good books on the subject?
Gabriel Cruz
There aren't any. OP literally made this thread because they don't know what they're doing or what the actual results will be anymore.
Henry Butler
"Schedules of Reinforcement" by Skinner himself.
Wyatt Lewis
Holy fucking kek dude. Also you sound like a sociopath, I say that as a scientist who has studied these things.
Liam Robinson
Psychopath here and that's not what he sounds like. A sociopath doesn't need a book for this shit. Yes, he SOUNDS like he exhibits similar types of behaviors, but the motivation is unpublished.
Colton Reyes
>keeping a gf as a pet instead of a companion and partner of equal measure >having to trick people into liking you and staying with you rather than winning affection by merit >claiming to love someone but psychologically manipulating them without remorse
>keeping a gf as a pet instead of a companion and partner of equal measure The idea of a companion of equal measure if flawed. Humans are inherently hierarchical, and even in two-people systems the hierarchy is very well defined. Don't fool yourself.
>having to trick people into liking you and staying with you rather than winning affection by merit "Winning affection by merit" is actually just another strategy. What I call the "naive" strategy. My strategy is just that but on steroids. How do you think I get my girls at first? Random strangers will not submit themselves to my methods just because I ask them too. There is still some natural bond making at play because such is the way of the human. But anyone who uses a naive strategy in any kind of game finds out that the result is defeat.
>claiming to love someone but psychologically manipulating them without remorse What is love if not for the way our brain tricks us into wanting to be with someone. All I am doing is accepting that our brains are wise, and consciously applying the subconscious tricks that work so well.
Adam Rogers
>even in two-people systems the hierarchy is very well defined That's where it's least defined and by spouting a tactical incorrectness you're actually revealing the brainwashing you've been suscepted to by reading these shit tomes.
>accepting that our brains are wise Just the opposite, in fact.
You're systematically failing to trust your own brain and abilities. NLP shit is copied from the inherent behaviors of sociopaths. You're trying hard to be what others naturally are.
Gabriel Ward
>That's where it's least defined and by spouting a tactical incorrectness you're actually revealing the brainwashing you've been suscepted to by reading these shit tomes. Look at the two-system in pic related. Can you describe the hierarchy? I can.
I can describe millions of hierarchies. You're rearing up because I'm negging your ego, while simultaneously stating that your methods work and are correct. You can't handle it. The fact is I'm smarter.
Chew on that hierarchy.
Evan Kelly
Well, after fucking 15mins of google, i came to the conclusion you are an idiot for thinking you can manipulate humans the same way you manipulate rats in a lab. Humans are 100x more complex than that, and, differently than a rat in a cage, we don't live in secluded enviroments, we interact with other people, and just that fact would trash your experiment.
Justin Robinson
What you have concluded, in fact, is that you are not ambitious enough. I mean, even doctors start by testing treatments on animals. It does not mean "IT WORKS ON HUMANS" but it means what it means, and because we know our shit, we know how to bridge that gap. You don't, that much is clear.
James King
It might work if he isolates his gf like a typical abuser.
Alexander Gomez
Im not saying it is impossible to conditionate a human being, just that you would have to be a fucking god actor to do that by yourself. And even then, acting comes with the catch that, good actors, when they are performing, feel what they are performing, with that said, you would end up conditioning yourself too. To manipulate a human being without damage to yourself you would need at least a group of people, AT LEAST. Even companies struggle to manipulate people into buying shit, it's not a easy thing to do. Remember that you too, are a human.
Isaac Martin
>just that you would have to be a fucking god actor to do that by yourself When God gave us math, he gave us the power to be Gods. As long as the statistics keep confirming my theory, I will keep applying. I'm already winning, after all.
Sebastian Hernandez
Yes, adding unpredictable aversive stimuli to these intermittent rewards makes the positive experiences more reinforcing. This is what makes the "abusive cycle" so powerfully reinforcing, like an addiction.
You have this planned on a spreadsheet but the effect is the same as if it were an unplanned abusive cycle because you're gf has no meaningful influence over the negative or positive outcomes.
You have neglected the contribution of attachment in your plan's efficacy. The attachment system is what causes distress when separated from attachment figures. It is also what drives people to seek safety from attachment figures when distressed, no matter how unhappy these people make them.
Nevermind the absence of crying. You are training your gf's attachment system to become more disorganized. That means you the attachment figure are both the source of safety and source of distress or danger. You upset her, she is prompted to seek safety but you are also the source of distress. She will likely freeze in the face of punishments.
Hunter Watson
Ok then Dr. Lecter, continue your dumb and pointless experimentation then.
William Wood
Isn't your sample size one?
Jonathan Morris
Disregarding this entire Trainwreck of a thread... Have you considered she's just not the crying type?
I've dated a woman who could make herself cry on volition, just thinking about sad things to make the waterworks go. On the contrary I've dated another woman who just didn't cry. She stopped with that due to some childhood traumatic determination of wanting to be in control of her feelings more. Ever since she has ever only cried a couple of times, about three to five years apart when shit really hit the fan. My third and current gf is a bit of a golden middle ground, who cries only rarely when she's really sad.
You picked a fight and tried to make her cry, but did you take into account what her history and habit of breaking down was? Not every woman cries the same way or because of the same reason.
Parties not relevant to the conversation might see unpredictable results, and since I don't care how anyone other than OP sees that message, your comment cannot possibly reflect a genuine perspective of my psyche.
Carson Rogers
Eh, forty replies, your bait is solid and holds up under scrutiny, but I wouldn't trust it in front of a thorough critique Still goes in every field, sorry.
Brody Moore
Oh no. Had you read the trainwreck of a thread, you would have known he's so smart he "trained her not to cry."
Mason Mitchell
I did read it but disregarded it as bullshit. I'm trying to overlook the elephant in the room and point out the cockatrice on the cupboard.
Easton Wood
ITT: Guy who has found an effective strategy for finding weak people that pimps have employed for ages convinces himself he's a genius and has a sudden moment of uncertainty when it doesn't go according to script.
Ethan Wright
Welcome to Jow Forums, where anybody who finds something that works immediately declares themselves a genius and lords it over everybody else. All fields, all the time.
Noah White
You sound like a psychopath or just an edgy retard
I myself am a girl and never let a man see me cry
Ayden Stewart
Do you suspect that she has adapted to her situation/rationalized and therefore did not cry? Has your reward schedule been truly random? Also post more about the 2 that didn’t work
Alexander Brown
Anyone who boasts their intelligence is a fucking loser. Just a thought.
Ian White
Point wasn't to boast, therefore you missed the point, therefore you're not OP, therefore.
Juan Ward
Appreciating your honesty OP. I would like to talk to you about your research, perhaps elsewhere, though I would be surprised to have you oblige me.
As for the other user. I do not quite agree. You did not bother to question whether or not she maintained signs (a latency) of being like this beforehand, before having been with him. In which case his question is a valid one to pose as it attempts to understand an otherwise unaccounted for parameter, not one which he himself had through his processes generated.
As far as the likelihood that he did create this characteristic, rather than surfacing it, I simply disagree. I do not see it as likely. Especially in light of how immutable such (un)emotional characteristics typically are.
Elijah Rodriguez
this. At least do what I do and make fun of yourself. "Dumbest smart person you'll ever meet." Which is true. I am brilliant inside a classroom or learning environment. Outside? The struggle is real.
OP's main issue is a lack of the critical thinking processes required to understand what these articles are specifically talking about. In all honesty he sounds like a complete baboon.
"She didn't cry after I was an asshole? OMG! I trained her not to try! Genius! Amazing!"
come on, OP. lol. my sides.
Jaxson Cook
>27/29 relationships I mean, is it really a relationship if it only lasts a week?
Benjamin Rogers
No, course it wasn't, the point was for you to capitalize on your insecurity in the presence of someone so self confident by making a meager attempt of dominance.
In short, you do not appear as you think you do in your head
Lincoln Bennett
It means you are a sociopath, and a retarded one. Such "training" creates great stress and unhappiness in the subject. Ever saw a happy gambling addict? No. Sure they are trained to pull the lever, but they are miserable. Idiot. She didn't cry because she resents you and doesn't trust you enough to be genuine with you.
Josiah Wright
You also couldn't publish because your sample reeks of selection bias and contaminating variables. You think you're training women, what you're really doing is drawing in women likely to tolerate abusive behavior. You're not new, you're not revolutionary, you're not special, you're common and disinteresting.
Christian Cox
>gambling addict Theeeeeeree it is.
/thread
Brayden Jenkins
Jow Forums's autism never fails to impress
Aaron Sanchez
What's not normal is your sociopathic mindset.
Nathaniel Gutierrez
It's becoming increasingly normal the more rape culture is taken for granted. There has never been such a thing as "rape culture." It's purely fear mongering tactics by the ghost of a civil rights movement that worked and already accomplished its main goals decades ago. The fact is, women don't know WHAT they want, and men shouldn't have to pay the price because of it, but that's what we're seeing play out every day now. All sympathy goes to the victim and it's presumed that a man can never be raped or sexually abused. Apparently as soon as a man hits puberty, if they haven't already been abused by their local priest, they can never be abused in any other way ever again. They're already men, and men can take it.
"Rape culture," therefore, can only ever describe the tendency for the internet to make all emotions seem far more polarized than they actually would be in a healthy society.
You're going to start seeing more and more people like OP if Tumblr stays as it is, mark my fuckin' words.
