You might think bad guy was the opposite of nice guy. Actually, nice guy isn't anything to do with good or bad. nice guy is largely about selflessness or self negation. "I'm a Nice Guy ... I only want people to see how very very nice I am ... whine whine". In this way good guy is exactly as much of an opposite to nice guy as bad guy is.

It is existence that is the opposite of negation. Recoverying nice guys needn't be Satanists. Just being is quite enough.

Make someone perform an action as a result of a previously implanted hypnotic suggestion and then ask them why they did it. The subject gives reasons. They are bullshit. The subject does not know this.

For example:
Jeffery  "Alfred, Look into my eyes, look into my eyes, not around the eyes in the eyes 3-2-1 you're under! Now when I say 'cheese' you will go and look outside in the corridor. 3-2-1, you're back in the room! ... Now, Alfred, tell me .. do you fancy some cheese?"
[Alfred goes and looks in the corridor]
Jeffery "Why did you do that Alfred?"
Alfred "I was getting too hot" or "I wanted to get mobile phone reception" or "I thought I heard someone calling" or "I wanted to check the door was shut" or "I needed to stretch my legs" or "I wanted to make sure we were alone"

Alfred is giving an excuse. He's attributing reason to himself and postrationalising why he might have performed the action. The trouble though is that this excuse feels to Alfred like a reason. It feels like every reason he has for everything else he does. It does not feel the excuse that we know it to be. He's making stuff up and he doesn't know it. I wonder why?

It's not just Alfred. This is a very repeatable experiment.

You can see how this gets taught ...

Child "I want some cake!"
Parent "Why do you want some cake?"
Child "I just doooo!"
(at this point the child's mind just says CAKE and no more ... the child wants cake in much the same way a squirrel might want to climb a tree)
Parent "I'm sorry. That is not a proper reason. You have to give me a propper reason."
Child "I haven't had cake for ages" or "I like the colour" or "it smells so nice" or "i deserve a treat"
Parent "Good!"
[Child gets cake from Parent]

I thought that "I" was my faculty for reason. Encountering this little party piece was the start of the end for that fallacy.

On this topic, a friend pointed out to me recently that someone observing this fallacy in action across all of humanity might say something like "Forgive them, for they know not what they do".

1) a managed image (looks good, is hard - because it is a lie)

2) some disclosure (looks bad)

3) full disclosure (is good, is impossible perhaps, but it is the truth)

2 feels worse than 1
3 feels better

Being good at introspecting deeply and being good at fucking and killing are mutually exclusive skill sets. In times or evolutionary yore the saber tooth lions ate all the monkey philosophers. Really ... think about it ... there must have been great evolutionary pressure in favor of monkeys who's mechanisms of consciousness were occluded from them. Of course, these days, the presure has eased off a bit. But these days are a drop in the ocean compared to squillions of years that got us here. No wonder it's so hard to become aware.

If there are two sides in a game (even a simple game like Poker or bigger game like Survival and Replication AKA Life) then very quickly the sides will exploit and meta exploit and meta meta exploit the behaviours of the other (which are in turn attempting to exploit it). BANG, this coevolutionary spiral magics mad complexity out of nowhere.

It's obviously good for guys to want sex but its not good for a women (who invests heavily in child raising) to take it from anyone so its good for her to check for signs of matching long term investment on behalf of the guy so its good for guys to fake this so its good for women to have a good read on a guy (actually getting the guy to read himself for her ... saving her time ... by just going with your opinion of yourself as you've had more time to assess your own mate value(!) parasiting his effort) so its good for guys to under this whole "game" so its good for women to spot players etc etc etc etc etc etc

It's good for women to have high status guys. The might look for CHOOSINESS. They might look for guys being valued by other women (as then the other women carries some of their choosing effort! parasiting her effort). The fact that most guys just want a shag make these factors very strong discriminators of status because they INVERT the lower level. You can see such INVERTIONs everywhere.

Creatures, parasites, hyper parasites, hyper hyper parasites occur like mad even in far far simpler games

It's a dizzying myriad of co evolved complexity, life.

The pickup community writes about the "3 second rule".

This specific technique helps with being "a giver of value" (as RSDsay) by prohibiting being a taker-of-value by letching. If you are naturally a giver of value then the "3 second rule"  comes for free.

But being "a giver of value" is an alignment that follows naturally from the deep inner state of finding yourself to be GOOD. If you feel this, deep down inside, then being a giver of value comes for free.

Illicting my deep inner evaluation of myself is how women evaluate me. I've spent more time with myself than they have and its effective to appropriate this effort. Women's attractiveness is, by evolutionary design, a TESTOF UNUSUAL SIZE. What most men do is break the three second rule, take (eye candy) value by letching and ultimately show that they do not find themselves to be good deep down inside.
Test failed.

By evolutionary design women's beauty directly elicits my sense of my own goodness. That is what beauty is for.

Caveat: When the coco guys talked about "giving up feeling bad" I thought it was just a bunch of words but I'm starting to see what they are on about. Also, I am writing as a reformed Christian. If you do not have these perspectives you will likely think this is hippy nonsense.

I've put coco and the works of Brad Blanton (radical honesty) together in a way that I'm really happy with. coco is interested in uncovering our original innocence and goodness. They  take that goodness as an axiom. Brad is interested in not withholding (not lying, not having
"skeletons in the cupboard").

I think they go together like this:
On the outside people are often lying and so LOOKING good&Innocent (but FEELING bad and jaded!!). There's a wall of fear stopping people telling the truth because they a scared they might not LOOK so good&innocent any more. That's the Brad bit.

In my case, I noticing myself on the wrong side of this wall in a coco session. I want to explain the context. I hesitate like mad darting around trying to make sure they have everything they need to see it from my perspective. Ultimately, you could say, I want to grab them by the shoulders and shout "I AM GOOD! Can you see that? Can you??? Really?".

What comes next is that, on the other side of the wall, there is a genuinely good & genuinely innocent person who, given endless time and intensity to REALLY TELL IT (this is impossible, perhaps, but **that doesn't matter**), would of course be able to show their true perfectly good & perfectly innocence nature.

You can probably see, given I'm talking about endless-time and being really good, where I'm going with this. To really get the sound bite out of it: I think that we all go to Heaven.

(Not that I believe in Heaven per say but that's the best way of capturing the emotional state I'm trying to convey in this posting - I DID used to believe in Hell ... but what I have written above is the solution to that)

If you go to Real Social Dynamics and sign up for their mailing list they give you a free audio download. In that Tyler says somthing interesting: If I could like timetravel and go back in the past and say stuff to help my younger self I'd say "Dude!! Listen, nobody gives a shit!!!"

I've been thiking a lot recently about secret keeping. Tylers idea is key when it comes to this. Secret keeping requires that you believe people care far more than they do. Dude, nobody gives a shit!! As if our thoughts would be front page news? Secret keeping requires some conceit in order to believe that people want to know. By and large they do not. This idea is new on me but I like it. :)

So my daily stance could be 1) the natural stance of "I'm going to be uptight and keep all my secrets to myself forever!!" or it could be 2) "Hey .. would you like to know the details?" and since, people seldom give a shit, and hola T.M.I. at the drop of a hat, the difference to the outside world on the average day is about ZERO POINT ZERO. Meanwhile in my head the difference in quality of mental environment is HUGE. I get to give up all that uptight being hard on myself which is good as it made no difference anyhows.