OK, you know the drill,..stop, wait, don’t hit play just yet.
Before you think I’m being unusually cruel by posting this, try to pause a moment and observe the particulars of how Chelsea’s process works. Don’t assume I’m poking fun at all women; I’m using this as an illustration of process. She’s obviously not the sharpest tool in the drawer, and I can already hear the NAWALT echoes from the Matrix, but try to tune out the hilarity of this and understand how she constructs her reasoning here. It’s a fascinating insight into the approach average women use when calculating rational matters. I have no doubt that offended women will seek to dissociate themselves from this sort of ignorance, but I’m not focusing on ridicule here, I’m interested in the process.
From the beginning Chelsea can’t appear to have not given the topic its logical due diligence. So she’s has to prove an effort has been made on her part by offering a lengthy breakdown of how she figured it out. Watch any Sarah Palin interview and you’ll get the idea; it’s similar to having to show your work when doing a mathematical computation in school. After a lengthy analysis, “yeah, I dunno how you’d work that out.”
Next we move into the solipsistic logic that is women’s default when required to formulate a logical-sounding theory. Chelsea is kind enough to verbalize this for us; “if I run a mile in like,..9 minutes,..but when I’m really in shape, it’s like,..7 minutes,..when I’m really in shape, and that like takes me a mile. An I’m running at like 10 miles per hour, and that’s pretty fast for a human being,..”, however this is often an unspoken, subconscious process for women. As I’ve describe in past post, women’s solipsism and emotional wiring is generally the primary conduit through which problem solving and opinion formulation occurs. That’s not to say that women lack the capacity to be just as rational as men, but it is to say that this solipsistic logic is the innate filter that must be cognitively repressed when arriving at a rational solution to a problem.
To see this in action all a guy needs to do is read any manosphere comment thread to see the frequency with which women will apply their personal, anecdotal experiences to a situation and presume her experience is the global, universally applicable, reality.
Continuing,..once Chel realizes that her personal experience isn’t sufficient to adequately solve the problem she then resorts back to over-explanation of her process, only this time, with more variables added to hedge her bets for when she inevitably is proven uneducated in her assessments. This is called preemptive ego preservation. You see, at a certain point, once personalization and wordy analyzation proves fruitless in solving or misdirecting a solution, there needs to be footnotes and caveats pre-established and readily available when the actual solution is provided. In fact a NAWALT (“not all women are like that”) retort is a prepackaged form of exactly this preemptive ego preservation.
And as you can see, when the actual verifiable solution is presented, she falls back on all of her previous methodologies at once, and includes her previous caveats in her defense in spite of the empirical evidence that disproves her “logic”.
Finally comes the accusations of error on the premises of the poser of the question,..
“you are not making sense, I make sense, you do not make sense…you don’t know the answer, you guestimate like I guestimate…”