• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

How can I make it happen at my age?

Not open for further replies.
Chris Williamson, like so many other insecure men, blames women for making men feel less 'manly'. No woman can make a man feel this way without the man's full cooperation, even if the man denies it or doesn't even realize it.

After reading his biography, it is easy to see that the abuse he received from his mother still resonates within him.

In my unqualified opinion, he seeks from women the approval and assurance that he never received from his mother, and reacts with hostility when he does not receive it.

Despite his wealth and popularity, it must really suck to be him.
Agreed - additionally doesn't anyone ever consider the source? I mean, what are his qualifications exactly?? His career highlights consist of:

1. Nightclub promotion
2. Being a contestant on 2 dating game shows

Come on, guys. Do better than this.
Williamson's "niche" is that he mainly interviews who are promoting books they've written or otherwise have something to say and a well-structured effective way to say it.

He's very good at interviewing people like that.

He chooses people who match his own interests, which include
* Personal development (body and mind). Those don't generally interest me, but some do
* Factors that shaped current society, and/or are shaping the near future of human society.

On balance it's very interesting. For example, I first learned about the coming population collapse from one of his interviews (Stephen J Shaw), and liked the interviews with e.g. Warren Farrell, Mary Harrington, Louise Perry, Melissa Kearney, Anna Machin, Cory Clark. Michael Bailey, David Geary. And many others - he does a couple a week, so there's a lot of material.

Why those examples? Pick some that match a personal interest area, and find out.

Williamson is equally disliked by progressives and conservatives (using US definitions of both terms).
Because his content is based on relevance and the best available facts within the topic. And Ideologues don't like facts at all.
Which, of course, shows up clearly to a moderate/neutral party in ideologues' critiques of people who do like facts..

Just a reminder: the use of "scared to approach" is, as a general rule, a "dog whistle".

Reluctance to make a "cold" approach is not the "fight/flight" kind of adrenaline-pumped body reaction the phrasing above evokes. They use it rather than something neutral because the whistler (or the source of their ideology) is trying to "sell" a perspective on the behavior of their supposed "opposition".

Approach/Don't Approach decisions are the result of a rational risk/reward calculation.
Is it fear (as in "afraid to act" fear) to consider risks as well as rewards? As, for example, we do all the time when making business decisions. Or in fact the majority of decisions, small and large, we make in life.

Only via equivocation.

Men are approaching less because if they're not in the "magic 20%" the odds of success are low, and both the odds of an impolite rejection and the risk of a false accusation that's accepted by others are literally the highest they've ever been.

Of course the statistics are changing. It's the rational response: selecting the "no go" side of the "go/no go" decision should be less common, because the value of the "go" side is way down, and the disadvantages of the "no go" side are way up.

"The truth will out" as the saying goes - but not always in the way you first expect.

IMO it's just more experimental evidence for the Law of Unexpected Consequences /lol.

BTW - I view Chris Williamson as a source that tries hard (and almost always succeeds) to be an honest, unbiased, and accurate source of information. And he's an outstanding interviewer.
His is easily my favorite YouTube channel.
Even if men stopped approaching women in the masses or droves, I highly doubt it will cause women to start approaching men more often
I agree. But FWIW I don't think it's as simple as achieving true equality either.

There's an evolutionary psychology explanation for women wanting men to unilaterally demonstrate interest (approach, pay for dates, propose, etc) and to actively affirm it later. The "one-sided Valentines day" phenomenon is one very visible example of it continuing during a committed pair-bond.
(BTW the conditions for which these behaviors are useful no longer apply in modern society, but OFC that probably won't stop them.)

So just identifying double standards isn't a sufficient basis for demanding they change.
You can deny the existence of evolved behaviors (and many people do) but that doesn't mean you can change them easily :)

The best way would forward would probably be to gradually work towards a new social contract. But it's currently a war rather than a negotiation, so the unproductive power struggle will likely continue. I still think the population collapse will come before any genuine improvement.

For the near future, I'll repeat an earlier comment: happy people have a significant edge in the dating market.
There are no guarantees for anyone still "in the game" but you can't lose by following a self-improvement path that you enjoy and makes you happy :)
Not open for further replies.

New Threads

Top Bottom