Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
As some of you may or may not be aware from my posts I tend to approach DJ / AFC issues from a very analytical bent. Just to preface this, understand that the second of my dual major post-graduate is behavioral psychology with an emphasis on personality studies. When I discovered the DJ forum I found a community with a variety of issues that parallel and compliment my studies dramatically, so you'll find my viewpoints inspired from my research.
That said I thought I might share some insights into how applied behavioral analysis can be implemented in the DJ ideology. Essentially this ideology is in effect a behavior modification program; not only in self-improving ones own behaviors, but observing the behavior of others (generally the opposite sex in this instance) and choosing an appropriate set of responding behaviors to achieve a desired behavior from a woman (i.e. intimacy). The DJ Bible is basically a collection of field observations with implementation of appropriate responses dictated from these correalates. In English this means response are formed by understanding the outcomes of observations. This is where I'll start.
In behavioral analysis there are basically 3 methods of data gathering - Direct Observation, Indirect Observation and Experimentation. Of these, the natural tendency for the average male when attempting to understand female behavior is to use indirect observation. This is easily characterized in the timeless teenage male pubescent question, "What do girls really want?" in a vain effort to modify their own behavior in accordance with the conditions of these dictates. Indirect observation takes a 3rd person approach to data gathering relying on the report of others or personal interviews with regards to the operative data prompting the behavior and the behavior itself. Needless to say this approach accounts for the least reliable data due to 3rd person bias or the reporting of information that the informant thinks the researcher 'wants' to hear (i.e. it's the right thing to say). Unfortunately the young, inexperienced AFC (in fact most boys) tends to opt for this approach because it involves the least amount of rejection potential. This approach is also reinforced by peers of the opposite sex because it self-affirms an attention need and provides a girl with an agency of control. Consequently, and understandibly the boy becomes confused when a girl's stated conditions for intimacy are contradicted by his direct observation of her actual behaviors.
Direct observation is just that, directly observing behavior and drawing correalates from these observations. As a general practice, this is the prefered method of observation for women. Directly observing the behavior of males is either an innate naturalistic tendency for females or it is learned at a very young age. I notice these direct observation of the opposite sex as well as members of her own sex in my own 6 year old daughter. Women apply this observation very precisely, registering the most subtle in ways men are unused to doing. How often have you had a woman tell you about the 'dirty look' they got from another woman when you were in the same space at the same social gathering when it occurred and you had not picked up on it? Women gather information differently than men on levels that they themselves may not even be aware of.
It would be my first advice for men, especially those who maintain that women are 'unknowable' creatures given to arbitrary behavior, to begin basing their understanding in direct observation methods. The rookie mistakes AFCs commonly make are founded in data derived from indirect observations that then become internalized and manifest in AFC behavior. Again the fear of rejection (a naturally aversive stimulus) evokes a protective, indirect observation method. When you base your assumptions on what a woman does, rather than what she says, you will have better picture of what prompts her behavior giving you cues for predicting future occurances of it and allowing you to plan your own contingent behavior accordingly.
That said I thought I might share some insights into how applied behavioral analysis can be implemented in the DJ ideology. Essentially this ideology is in effect a behavior modification program; not only in self-improving ones own behaviors, but observing the behavior of others (generally the opposite sex in this instance) and choosing an appropriate set of responding behaviors to achieve a desired behavior from a woman (i.e. intimacy). The DJ Bible is basically a collection of field observations with implementation of appropriate responses dictated from these correalates. In English this means response are formed by understanding the outcomes of observations. This is where I'll start.
In behavioral analysis there are basically 3 methods of data gathering - Direct Observation, Indirect Observation and Experimentation. Of these, the natural tendency for the average male when attempting to understand female behavior is to use indirect observation. This is easily characterized in the timeless teenage male pubescent question, "What do girls really want?" in a vain effort to modify their own behavior in accordance with the conditions of these dictates. Indirect observation takes a 3rd person approach to data gathering relying on the report of others or personal interviews with regards to the operative data prompting the behavior and the behavior itself. Needless to say this approach accounts for the least reliable data due to 3rd person bias or the reporting of information that the informant thinks the researcher 'wants' to hear (i.e. it's the right thing to say). Unfortunately the young, inexperienced AFC (in fact most boys) tends to opt for this approach because it involves the least amount of rejection potential. This approach is also reinforced by peers of the opposite sex because it self-affirms an attention need and provides a girl with an agency of control. Consequently, and understandibly the boy becomes confused when a girl's stated conditions for intimacy are contradicted by his direct observation of her actual behaviors.
Direct observation is just that, directly observing behavior and drawing correalates from these observations. As a general practice, this is the prefered method of observation for women. Directly observing the behavior of males is either an innate naturalistic tendency for females or it is learned at a very young age. I notice these direct observation of the opposite sex as well as members of her own sex in my own 6 year old daughter. Women apply this observation very precisely, registering the most subtle in ways men are unused to doing. How often have you had a woman tell you about the 'dirty look' they got from another woman when you were in the same space at the same social gathering when it occurred and you had not picked up on it? Women gather information differently than men on levels that they themselves may not even be aware of.
It would be my first advice for men, especially those who maintain that women are 'unknowable' creatures given to arbitrary behavior, to begin basing their understanding in direct observation methods. The rookie mistakes AFCs commonly make are founded in data derived from indirect observations that then become internalized and manifest in AFC behavior. Again the fear of rejection (a naturally aversive stimulus) evokes a protective, indirect observation method. When you base your assumptions on what a woman does, rather than what she says, you will have better picture of what prompts her behavior giving you cues for predicting future occurances of it and allowing you to plan your own contingent behavior accordingly.