How to Spot a Unicorn

[AmsterdamAssassin]

Shyt testing is as simple as this: typically subconscious female emotional responses to a help her understand a paradoxical relationship dynamic, to test whether a man’s natural and unplanned responses match his canned responses.

I think that's a simplistic view. If this is 'typical', I should get a lot more congruency tests. There's something else at play here.

 

[Divorced w 3]

I think that's a simplistic view. If this is 'typical', I should get a lot more congruency tests. There's something else at play here.

Your interpersonal dynamic betrays any paradox you try and create. Leading relationships with heart is a good thing.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

Your interpersonal dynamic betrays any paradox you try and create. Leading relationships with heart is a good thing.

Yes, but there's a thing in your previous statement that you understated: "to test whether a man’s natural and unplanned responses match his canned responses"
Everyone lives with masks. The congruence testing is to see behind the mask.

 

[Divorced w 3]

Yes, but there's a thing in your previous statement that you understated: "to test whether a man’s natural and unplanned responses match his canned responses"
Everyone lives with masks. The congruence testing is to see behind the mask.

Right, except in your case I would guess, that they are trying to fish out whether you are this bad-boy you are working to cultivate, and I think in that sense you are failing, which is probably reassuring. It then gets attributed to your charm and deemed as paternal and playful.

i get the opposite, my dark triad is off the charts and I have been undergoing deep clinical work to address it, so far it seems to be working.

 

[jhonny9546]

She tells you, yet she still seems into you. Why make the remark at all? Excluding being a b!tch about someone's shortcomings, she must have a reason.

Yes, this behaviour I saw it with married couple too. sometimes, but it was more "teasing" and not more "serious" like first dates.

I still can't get it

 

[Divorced w 3]

Yes, this behaviour I saw it with married couple too. sometimes, but it was more "teasing" and not more "serious" like first dates.

I still can't get it

Why?

People grow, their personalities evolve and relationships continuously change. Why then would testing ever stop?

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

Right, except in your case I would guess, that they are trying to fish out whether you are this bad-boy you are working to cultivate, and I think in that sense you are failing, which is probably reassuring. It then gets attributed to your charm and deemed as paternal and playful.

You shouldn't see the mask as a literal mask.

You think I'm cultivating a bad-boy mask. I'm not. I grew up with violence and was volatile and violent in my late teens to early twenties, which happened some three decades ago. You don't know me, you look at some photos, I have an eyepatch, so probably I'm roleplaying as a pirate. Probably to seduce women, because why else would I be here on this forum. The fact that you think I'm 'cultivating' a certain 'imago' shows that you view me from a male/competitive perspective.

Most women understand that I'm not wearing an eye patch to role-play as a pirate, but that I need to cover my eye because of a severe medical condition; photophobia in a damaged eye that requires absolute darkness. The leather eyepatch allows me to open my left eye in darkness so I don't have to squint with my right eye.
While some of them might think I look like a former badass, I'm a divorced father taking care of two kids, and that is not what a 'bad boy' does. Also, I don't solve issues through violence, like I did in a distant past. Bad boys brawl. I only fought for survival and I don't need to anymore, because I found other ways to deal with conflicts.

Women look at me from a female perspective, they see a divorced father devoted to his children to provide them with a safe haven. And they see me as safe. Most of them don't know of my violent past and would frankly be surprised that I used to be volatile and violent. The feedback I get is that they feel safe because I'm capable and relaxed and confident in pretty much every situation. I'm not volatile, so I won't hurt them, not even unintentionally, because I'm in control of my emotions and reactions. I'm charming and well-liked in my social circles, I'm not threatening and I'm only intimidating to people with bad intentions.

And I'm here to do my own research for my novels, not because I'm incapable of interacting with and bonding with women.

With that out of the way, let's return to the subject of masks and congruence testing:

From my perspective, I see a distinct difference in the frequency and quantity of congruence testing between my lovers and my PTSD clients:
My lovers test maybe once or twice in the beginning of the relationship, after that I'm rarely tested or challenged, except when they themselves start doubting their own congruence.
My PTSD clients test constantly, because they exist in a state of permanently doubting their own congruence. Their mask are wildly disparate from their identities and as a result they cannot believe that someone else 'has their sh!t together'.

If that is correct, when your behaviour is congruent and the woman's behaviour is congruent, the testing will be limited; but when the testing continues unabated and you know you're congruent and your mask is close to your essence, then you're probably dealing with a woman who isn't congruent. Whatever she shows is not what she is. And because she cannot trust herself, she cannot trust you, and will keep on testing for external congruence in the absence of internal congruence.

 

[Divorced w 3]

You shouldn't see the mask as a literal mask.

You think I'm cultivating a bad-boy mask. I'm not. I grew up with violence and was volatile and violent in my late teens to early twenties, which happened some three decades ago. You don't know me, you look at some photos, I have an eyepatch, so probably I'm roleplaying as a pirate. Probably to seduce women, because why else would I be here on this forum. The fact that you think I'm 'cultivating' a certain 'imago' shows that you view me from a male/competitive perspective.

Most women understand that I'm not wearing an eye patch to role-play as a pirate, but that I need to cover my eye because of a severe medical condition; photophobia in a damaged eye that requires absolute darkness. The leather eyepatch allows me to open my left eye in darkness so I don't have to squint with my right eye.
While some of them might think I look like a former badass, I'm a divorced father taking care of two kids, and that is not what a 'bad boy' does. Also, I don't solve issues through violence, like I did in a distant past. Bad boys brawl. I only fought for survival and I don't need to anymore, because I found other ways to deal with conflicts.

Women look at me from a female perspective, they see a divorced father devoted to his children to provide them with a safe haven. And they see me as safe. Most of them don't know of my violent past and would frankly be surprised that I used to be volatile and violent. The feedback I get is that they feel safe because I'm capable and relaxed and confident in pretty much every situation. I'm not volatile, so I won't hurt them, not even unintentionally, because I'm in control of my emotions and reactions. I'm charming and well-liked in my social circles, I'm not threatening and I'm only intimidating to people with bad intentions.

And I'm here to do my own research for my novels, not because I'm incapable of interacting with and bonding with women.

With that out of the way, let's return to the subject of masks and congruence testing:

From my perspective, I see a distinct difference in the frequency and quantity of congruence testing between my lovers and my PTSD clients:
My lovers test maybe once or twice in the beginning of the relationship, after that I'm rarely tested or challenged, except when they themselves start doubting their own congruence.
My PTSD clients test constantly, because they exist in a state of permanently doubting their own congruence. Their mask are wildly disparate from their identities and as a result they cannot believe that someone else 'has their sh!t together'.

If that is correct, when your behaviour is congruent and the woman's behaviour is congruent, the testing will be limited; but when the testing continues unabated and you know you're congruent and your mask is close to your essence, then you're probably dealing with a woman who isn't congruent. Whatever she shows is not what she is. And because she cannot trust herself, she cannot trust you, and will keep on testing for external congruence in the absence of internal congruence.

I feel like something in my post offended you and if that’s the case I apologize.

I think your work in PTSD is very interesting, but I wonder if the traits you seem to notice in a set of clients with common underlying conditions, necessarily translate to the rest of women who don’t have a traumatic past.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

I feel like something in my post offended you and if that’s the case I apologize.

No, you didn't offend me. You're one of the few I respect here, but I felt like explaining why I didn't agree with your assessment.

I think your work in PTSD is very interesting, but I wonder if the traits you seem to notice in a set of clients with common underlying conditions, necessarily translate to the rest of women who don’t have a traumatic past.

Because I don't just observe PTSD women. It's precisely because I also observe 'normal' women that I noticed that difference in congruence testing. That's also why I don't refer to it as 'sh!t testing'. It's not like non-traumatised people don't test for congruence.

Everything carried into the extreme is a red flag. I noticed when dating in my usual social circles that I apparently appeared congruent with who I was, since women didn't test me as much as I could see happen to other people. So, my baseline for getting congruency tested by women is as described; 1-2 tests at the beginning ("Am I safe with you?"), and after that the tests are months, sometimes years apart.

And when you start dealing with PTSD women, who are at the extreme end of the 'trauma' spectrum, everything goes extreme, like ever gesture and behaviour gets magnified. I counsel PTSD men also, but the PTSD women are more challenging. First of all, I'm a man and when someone is sexually traumatised by men that becomes an extra obstacle to building trust. So it's understandable that the testing for congruency ("Am I really really safe with you?") becomes more intense, but also more frequent because the violation that caused the trauma is often caused by men they were supposed to trust ("I was supposed to be safe with him, but I wasn't and he violated that trust") and they have to test again and again because they doubt themselves and therefore the conclusion that I'm trustworthy. I have different ways of gaining that trust, but I got curious about the underlying motivation for all the testing and that it not always has to do with whether the observed is incongruent or the observer themselves cannot trust their judgement because they themselves are incongruent.

Since my relationships require absolute trust, I see frequent and intense unnecessary congruency testing as a huge red flag. The more a woman tests you, the more she believes you're incongruent. And when you know for yourself that you are congruent, then her testing shows that she doesn't trust her own judgment. Probably because she is incongruent herself, hiding behind a mask of deception and guile; and expects other people to also deceive other people. If she doesn't see the deception, it must be because you're an exceptionally good deceiver. The idea that you are not deceiving doesn't even pop up on their radar.