Dating 2.0 – Selection, Active And Passive
First, credit and inspiration for this post goes to Cedo Nulli, a blogger who lives in Thailand (link below). I found his blog from a link in a comment on another of my own posts (thanks Kev). Cedo presented the dating concept of a woman’s active selection for quality versus passive selection by elimination. He also presents an excellent analogy for these two selection processes. From his blog post [edited]:
The problem, at its core, is very simple. It boils down to active selection for quality, vs. passive selection by elimination. The first being good, the second being complete shit.
Say I asked you to go out and buy me the best phone you can find for $500. How do you choose the phone? Do you research the features, try them all out, compare, know your own preferences for operating systems and screen sizes? That would make sense.
However, here is the equivalent how girls pick their guys, for the most part:
They go to the store and proceed to smash every phone onto the floor. Whichever phone survives all the smashings, that’s the one she buys.
Which phone is that? Is it the latest high-end, big screen Samsung or is it the shittiest button phone? Duh. The crap will survive, because there is nothing to it. No awesome screen to break. No complex motherboard to get broken. The crap will survive the smashing.
That’s dating [2.0]. Whoever continues to make it through the flaking, the childish games, the bullshit, that’s the guy she ends up with. Quality guys with options won’t put up with that.
In effect, the shortage of good men is because too many women have been smashing them to the ground, leaving behind weak men who acquiesce to this (FriendZone!) or dark triad cads who then turn around and smash the woman through ugly manipulation or some form of abuse.
While this other quote originated from the beginning of Cedo Nulli’s blog post, it better serves as a punchline to describe the consequences of passive selection and endless testing:
I’m single, and continue to be so, because girls fuck up. Every flaking out, every dumb excuse, every little lie, every game, every charade, reduces her credibility and value in my mind. By the time I ‘get her’ it’s just a matter of victory over all the crap. All genuine emotion has long been killed by her bullshit.
This is a large part of Dating 2.0. Instead of a woman actively looking for quality, she’s passively looking through elimination. She finds any almost any reason to reject a man through games, testing, and manipulation. Online dating exacerbates the situation because there’s always another guy’s profile to check out or another message/IM from a guy. Plus, bad dating advice combined with the Greek chorus of well-intended friends encourage passive selection with the “Prince Charming is right around the corner” advice.
Is it any wonder why Cedo Nulli feels so little for these types of women? This kind of passive elimination creates doormats and cads, it does not encourage men of good character. Rather, this repels them.
This is the reason I created this dating exercise for women: Every time a woman sees or interacts with a man, she must find at least one good thing about him. That’s active selection. That dating exercise (link below) can go a long way to shift a woman’s mindset away from passive selection and also see the general goodness that the vast majority of men possess.
To conclude, back to Cedo Nulli with some minor edits on my part:
I can and will not respect a girl who qualifies me as dating potential by smashing my shit on the ground. All she’ll get is the rise of the player who’ll take the challenge and enjoy his fuck trophy. I don’t feel guilty. If you’re not actively choosing me for my qualities but rather for my ability to withstand games and bullshit, that’s all you deserve – games and bullshit.
“Cedo Nulli” roughly means “I yield to none.”
Word.
The Private Man 