The results from an interesting scientific study which could be fairly interpreted as providing evidence for the efficacy of the neg shows that men and women cooperate with each other differently, and that this cooperation disparity is based in differing expectations between the sexes. {Greek chorus: *FEMINISTS WEEEEEEEEEPT*}
In summary, women don’t trust beta males well-meaning men who appease them.
While men tend to match their partners’ emotions during mutual cooperation, women may have the opposite response, according to new research.
Cooperation is essential in any successful romantic relationship, but how men and women experience cooperation emotionally may be quite different, according to new research conducted at the University of Arizona.
Feminists are getting ready to weep.
Randall wondered how the act of cooperating, a beneficial relationship process, might impact emotional coordination between partners.
“Cooperation – having the ability to work things out with your partner, while achieving mutually beneficial outcomes – is so important in relationships, and I wondered what kind of emotional connectivity comes from cooperating with your partner?” she said.
What she found in her recent study – published in SAGE’s Journal of Social and Personal Relationships and featured in the journal’s podcast series, Relationship Matters – were surprising gender differences.
She and her colleagues found that during high mutual levels of cooperation with a romantic partner, men typically experience an “inphase” response to their significant other’s emotions. That is, if the woman in the relationship is feeling more positive, the man will feel more positive. If she feels less positive, he will feel less positive.
On the contrary, it seems women experience more of an “antiphase” pattern during high mutual cooperation. If her partner is feeling more positive, she will tend to feel less positive, and vice versa.
Aaaand… torrent of termagant tears!
Take, for example, the following familiar scenario: A woman emerges from a department store fitting room and asks her husband what he thinks of a potential new shirt. He likes it, he says, hoping his time at the mall is nearing an end. So does the woman head straight to the cash register and make the purchase? Probably not. Chances are, her husband’s enthusiasm won’t be enough; she’ll want to try on a few more shirts first.
Social psychology literature on cooperation tells us that women generally tend to cooperate more, while men often try to avoid conflict. Thus, men might be subconsciously syncing their emotions with their partners’ during cooperation in an effort to avoid conflict or reach a speedy resolution, Randall says.
If that’s the case, it’s possible, although Randall’s study didn’t test for it, that women may pick up on the fact that their partner’s agreeability is not entirely authentic. If she suspects he’s not really as positive as he seems, or that he has an ulterior motive, she may become less positive herself in an attempt to get at his real feelings and reach a more mutually satisfying resolution, Randall suggests.
Read the bolded part again. Here are the grounds for interpreting this study as providing evidence for the effectiveness of the game concept known as the neg. If you agree too readily with a woman — if you appease her and supplicate to her and seek her approval — she’ll feel less happy, even less aroused, in your company. She’ll instead attempt to “dramatize” your mutual interaction by becoming a sourpuss and challenging your agreeableness, which in certain contexts (such as bar pick-ups) materializes as the shit test.
Now we have the insight to know why, perhaps, the neg works on women: Because by deliberately adopting a pose of contrariness, of resistance to accommodation, a man can inspire feelings of connection, curiosity and craving in women. Be the jerk, and you’ll be beloved. Be the placater, and you’ll be perpetually pestered for proof of sincerity.
If you’ve ever had to endure a grilling from your girlfriend or wife for your opinion on something she’s wearing, you’ll know the pain of being a “yes, dear” man. The harder you try to smooth the waters, the more tirelessly she churns open sea turbulence. And so, having been in this exasperating situation a few too many times for my taste and sanity, I had discovered a better way, a way now bolstered by ♥SCIENCE♥:
Be a “no, dear” man.
Tell the light of your life, “No, dear, that dress looks bad on you.” “No, dear, those shows don’t make you look good.” No, dear, this look isn’t working for you.”
[GBFM version: “No, dearlzzlol, that thongzz covers the butthosllezx. Don’t make me do all da work when all da men before me got your butholeszzs for free lzlolzzzlolz”]
Betaboys shriek, “But she’ll hate me for saying that!” FEEBS! Have you not learned a single thing reading this blog? Lemme tell you what really happens. She makes an indignant face, looks shell-shocked for a half second, retreats to the dressing room or closet, and returns with a new item to buy or wear, no further questions asked, yerhonner. The “yes, dear” demon infant has been killed in the crib.
Seduction is the art of flirting, and flirting is an artful term for pushing away and pulling toward. All betas know how to do is pull toward, aka “Please like me! You’re the best! Here’s proof of my love!” game. But this is boring to women, and actively repulses them during their one week ovulatory period. Taking the opposite tack is the blinkered douche, who only knows how to push away. This is exciting for women at first, but the novelty wears off quickly.
The right balance is struck between alternately pulling toward and pushing away. As all great seducers know, and as science is now coming around to confirming, the ideal male lover is the man who understands the value of emotionally desyncing with women. He doesn’t distance himself from a woman; rather, he cleverly directs her arousal by undermining feelings of closeness just at the moment she starts to relax and senses that she can predict his desire and behavior, and then drawing her back in when she fears his loss of interest. By alternately undermining and reengaging like this, he subverts the Male Chaser-Female Chasee expectation, and thus flips the normal sex status differential that is the standard operating procedure of an unobstructed and undirected mating market so that, by his manipulations, he is perceived as the more valuable commodity.
From there, female hypergamy finds root and the labia flower like spring lilies in the noon sun.
Prompt punishment for bad behavior, intermittent reward for good behavior, emotional desyncing and resyncing for creating deep feelings of arousal and connection: These are the tools of the modern Casanova in a global mating village where the old rules to curb the primal chaos of female sexuality have long been discarded and forgotten.
PS Here’s Psychology Today‘s analysis of the same study.
