Another common problem in America, people often make reference to 'this', when there is no clear contextual clue as to exactly what is mean by 'this'. I don't know how many papers I've edited in which people start an entirely new thought in an entirely new paragraph with the word 'this'.

It probably stems from people saying "woulda" rather than "would have" when speaking. Phonetically, it translates back to "would of" when written.

Come visit us in the Southern US . The language here will stand your hair on end. Instead of saying that they are planning on doing something- the way that it is said here is " I am fixing to..."

Then there is the very popular "usta could". No, Jeff Foxworthy DID NOT make this up." I cannot get to Clarksville by train anymore. But I usta could. "

Frankly, this makes no sense.



How does one "relate too much" to what one does, and furthermore, how is this bordering on a Satanic sin? Which sin?
What could your first statement possibly have to do with the suspension of disbelief?



What is sometimes an "Is, Not Does" scenario? What does this have to do with a person's nature and how does the statement correlate to the "born, not made" maxim, other than mimicking it's grammatical structure?



Put simply, Power equals Force times Velocity.
So, force is an essential component to power, even when speaking in vague metaphors.

What you are talking about there though, Sue, is idiosyncratic vernacular.

It's quite different to incorrect use of English per se.

It's like here in Uttoxeter. Youth is "Yoth."

I've been to the Southern U.S.A. I like the way they speak. In fact, it's probably my favorite dialect in the States.

... or brain surgery

I think this phrase was intentional, it was introduced by Shade (if I remember correctly) in another topic a while back.

Actually, I thought that “rocket surgery” thing, was a deliberate joke on Vitaeviternus’ part. A humorous merging of the two popular sayings, which are designed to mean basically the same thing.

People are interested in, or care about what you do to fulfill their desires, so by giving people what they want, they are your best friend?

Not exactly.

We are always communicating, sending and receiving social information, much of which is non verbal, so if you want someone to view you as “your best friend”, you need to direct the quality of your communication specifically to establish a deep level of rapport.

According to Robert Cialdini, different tactics can be employed to produce a desired reaction, the majority fall within six basic categories including consistency, reciprocation, social proof, authority, liking, and scarcity.

Reciprocity may produce an undesired reaction if you come off as a fawning sycophant, or create a feeling of unwanted obligation. Cialdini cites the example of women who allow men to buy drinks for them in bars, and then feel obligated to have sex in return.

Or perhaps your scheme requires that you are viewed as holding a higher social value than your would be pal, and your presentment of attention or goods might seem to be overt patronizing, this unwarranted gifting may actually lower your perceived social value.

Within the social dynamics of casual dating, approval seeking behavior might not create a feeling of attraction within your seduction target, and may diminish any initial attraction that may exist.


Consider searching for: rule of reciprocation

fix 'merikin anglish, pert near anyways
stuck between in one ear and out the hard place

No... Brain science.

I agree, Cryptodelic. I was speaking figuratively of "best friend".

All the same, the way you approach it is interesting to me. For instance, approval seeking behavior on a casual date may diminish attraction. Attraction, I would think, is the goal, and seeking approval is not the answer. It is not what people want, in other words.

Giving people what they want does not immediately translate to approval seeking or even buying drinks at the bar. Volumes have been written on what women really want. Even so-called pickup artists who achieve legendary success doing what leads to sex fail in building a lasting relationship. Incidently, a pickup artist wrote a book on just that subject, and I have enough of those books, I cannot remember which it was.

I have read about the rule of reciprocity. Maybe Robert Greene or Wikipedia? Probably both.

Really, you explicated where I did not: It is not exactly easy.

Thanks.

Mr. Obsidian,

I think people can relate too much to what they do. All the time, people say things like I am a cook, or I am a student, or etc. The degree to which people relate to these terms they use is anyone's guess, and what is too much is perhaps largely subjective. Even I do it and consider there may be a big distinction between I am a Soldier in the Army and I soldier in the Army. Maybe the English language makes it easier to say I am rather than I do, or maybe the ease is found in societal norms. Regardless, I do not think saying it is as bad as believing it. In my job alone, I know plenty of men whose options are close to zero because they cling to the notion, "I am a Ranger," and see no other avenue, even in the Army.

That this inclination to relate to what one does to the point of deeply identifying with it "border[s] on the other Satanic Sins" might not mean that it borders any given one of them. I think ror meant that it is perhaps so unuseful, that it could be a Satanic Sin. Had Anton LaVey included it, it would have been. That he did not, the best ror can maybe say is that it borders on the other Satanic Sins.

Or, maybe ror even meant Self-deceit, which I think fits nicely, too. Wholly identifying with what we do could be a sacred cow, and Anton LaVey mentions roles in the Fourth Satanic Sin.

Is, not does. Born, not made. Is born, not does ma[ke].

The Satanist is born. He does not make or force Satanism to be his philosophy. I do not think that would even work. Though, Satanism is something with which one identifies. I think identifying with Satanism works because it is not a role to be filled. I think ror was just driving at this exception.i

Power over force simply means that it is better to apply force where it belongs rather than applying force for application's sake. You pointed out that power is force times velocity, velocity entailing direction.

I imagine ror was hinting at the idea that giving people what they want--to get what one wants--might be as simple as not detroying the notions with which they identify.

Granted, ror's posts can be difficult to digest, not always being immediately clear--and perhaps I am completely wrong--but that is half their fun for me.

This thread is making my brain cry.



"I wish I could say everything there is to say in one word. I hate all the things that can happen between the beginning of a sentence and the end." ~ Leonard Cohen

Should a kindly Mod put this thread out of it's misery and lock it? Of all people. I hate to see your brain cry.

You are such a gentleman, Mr. Daark.

I don't mean to crash the party though. I'm just having an awful hard time eking sense out of some of these posts. I dunno, I might be the only one who needs a decoder ring. Wouldn't be the first time.

That is cute.