Perplexed wrote:Blogg wrote:Perplexed wrote:now that I think about it though, I'm really in no position to lecture you, I'm in the same boat and haven't yet been able to follow my own advice (why else would I have known about the book?
)
Aha!
So you've read 'the book'? ;-)
So you might have some idea as to what I'm on about, here.
What do you believe? Is the problem purely psychological? Or is it more likely to be neurological or biological?
I don't know, but it sure would be interesting to find out about how others see it.
Most people don't seem to understand.
((
I thought I had responded to this, but looking around the thread I can't find my post, so please forgive if I'm repeating myself, and even more so if I contradict myself!
I think that everyone is different, and that my problem is different from your problem which is different from joe schmoe's problem which is different from slappy's problem (wait, did slappy have a problem?)... it's no one thing, it's a combination (thought I doubt that the problem is biological in our two cases). I think it's behavioural, you and I seem to have missed something, not a lesson or advice, but experiences. Think about high school (an unpleasant request I know), did you date in high school? I didn't. Lots of guys didn't, but most guys tried. If you were like me, you didn't, or only barely did.
Same.
I didn't 'date' in high school either (I didn't know the significance of dating back then - I thought it was a thing limited to sitcoms. It wasen't until I was about 24/25 that I (only just) started to realise the significance of dating). And that
might be my problem, too.
But that's not to say that I'm not looking at other ideas.
Problem: how can one gain that experience at such a late age?
One problem is that it seems that the brain wires itself either way. Either it's wired with dating experience, or it's wired for lonelyness. Once wired in such a way it becomes gradually more set (like concrete setting), and it's hard to go back and rewire.
If only I could go back in time 10 years, and visit my old self, I might have changed something!
Quote:
Now, if we had tried more, if we had gotten over our shyness and tried then, in the low stakes, high opprotunity world of high school (Though of course we never thought of it as low stakes then, did we?) we would have started learning then what works and what doesn't, in an atmosphere much more conducive to actual social learning than a forum on the internet!
Okay, I kinda rambled there, but you get what I'm saying, it's not psychological or biological or neurochemical, it's not "Male lesbianism" or some stupid catch-phrase from that book, it's just experiences we need to catch up on, and the only way to do that is to try (don't worry, this is damn difficult advice for me to follow too.)
The problem not being neological (or biological) but rather just a high level psychological problem was my assumption many years ago.
But I have found evidence (including from Gilmartins book), that there just
might be a biological cause.
I had the type of mother he describes in his book.
This idea has changed my thinking quite a bit.
Quote:
As for that book, I have mixed feelings. I thought it was insulting, over-simplified, and based on spurious, untested claims and assumptions. It also gave a lot of the advice we're hearing on this forum, "it's all about confidence", "you have to have the right attitude" etc. There's good advice in it and bad advice, unfortunately, I thought that the bad advice would do more damage to our concepts of ourselves than the good advice would help us get dates, so in the end I say punt that book to the curb.
I hope you find someone blogg, good luck.
There was a lot of strange quackery non-science, I wouldn't deny that!
But much of it was based on studies which showed strong correlations. Much of the book was based on good science. And there's nothing else out there like it.
That's what I like about the book.
All other books are just 'self-help' waffle.
That guy is from this area..... and no it's not me....
