Sometimes, it's good to hear what other people think you're saying.
And, although you've repeated a point many times in your articles... some people can still focus on technique, and miss the fact that I've repeatedly pointed out an important central message.
So, let's try emphasizing that central message even further.
In fact, it's so central, that I'm referring to it as "The eHarmony Cracked Prime Directive".
It is this:
The goal of any interaction is to promote the long-term happiness of yourself, and the person that you are interacting with.
So, yes, I whole-heartedly agree. Idealization, mirroring, and twinship (and, in fact, any of the suggestions that I make on this blog) are potential tools that can be used toward achieving this goal. And should not be considered goals in and of themselves.
So, no. You shouldn't try to be "someone else" in an attempt to be idealizable.
You shouldn't try to provide mirroring for things that you can't reflect.
And, no, you shouldn't pretend to provide twinship.
Trying to fake these things, in the long run, violates our prime directive. In fact, it harms both of your chances for long-term happiness.
And, in fact, I repeatedly said this in my original articles.
But... when these things are genuine, it feels good. And you should take advantage of these opportunities, when they arise.
So... thanks for letting me know that I needed to give this point some more emphasis.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
What's interesting here is that a case could be made for problems like this at other PUA sites, where they indirectly encourage men to be disengenuous. Any man who isn't brain-dead and completely impressionable knows to ignore this stuff, because there is TONS of excellent advice to be found there.
You, on the other hand, (imo) incorporate only the core principles of that stuff - the good parts, what I wish those sites could be. (Incidentally, I think you could talk about more ideas that originated there, continuing to leave out the questionable stuff). So, I think this is a simple case of somebody recognizing one of your influences, criticizing its flaws, all the while ignoring that you never included them to begin with. The lengths some people go...
Well, the author did criticize something that (as far as I know), came only from this site - I don't know of any PUA sites that directly refer to mirroring, idealization and twinship. (If you know of any, let me know.)
So, I don't think that was the case. And I don't think the author was out for slander... he just had a misunderstanding.
But it's still important for me to know that I've put up points that can be misunderstood. And for me to correct those impressions.
Post a Comment