How to Be a Dominant Man: What You Didn't Know About the 'Winner Effect' | Girls Chase

Add new comment

Anonymous's picture

body language, tone, verbal fluency, confidence in your interpretation, coupled with a laid-backness, as you know you're right, to such self-evident extent that you're almost helping the other, rather than convincing them for your own means, and hence convey a caring but laissez faire attitude towards whether the other believes... of course, this is one approach, dominance can work too, as can more histrionic showmanship, of such skill that it conveys more of a natural desire to get people pumped and happy, rather than impress, because you don't have to impress, you know you are impressive, you have nothing to prove... but u have to authentically know that, not believe that... which requires, in a way, winning, again, and again, in everything, awards, ppls attention, their trust, favors, important peoples friendships, re-framing losing as learning, external attributions for unsuccessful endeavors... i use to fail at everything, slowly that changed, now i don't have to really try and convince myself effort equals success, the contingency of reward is almost 100 percent... that knowing, makes all the difference, u don't have to be better, being better knows u can achieve, because ur likely to put in the action required for reward, because payoff perception is high, then it becomes a positive feedback loop, and losses seem like abberations, u accept a poor effort, analyze it, look at what contributed, and retool... because u learn ur locus of control is very internal, failure is a result of deviation, chance, or atypical preperation or idiosyncratic circumstance... winning isn't intrinsic to you, you just know how to, not theoretically, but empircally, and this contingency means ull push even when ppl try to repudiate ur projection of self determined societal norms, u know u win, statistically, so u push back, without the number of action-reward events, this is far from certain, so ur assesment of probability suffers from low sample size, and lack of statistical power... lol, funny, ur getting the phenomenology, behavioural psychology, statistics, social psychology, social cognition, and behavioral economics... transposed to a social domain, all in one... perhaps the theoretical of what the author describes in a more intuitive fashion... which is equally valid, in the end, we both say the same thing... although my explanation in this post is likely far more explanatory than utilitarian... and in the end, utility, or the ends, is what matters, so kudos to the author!