I'd counter that and say one should consider any advice in terms of the motives for giving it whether it comes from a member of one's own sex or the opposite. Talking to the opposite sex, for example, may only result in receiving information in what opposite sex believes about themselves rather than what they actually do.

The point shouldn't be to get over this type of thinking per se, but rather to determine which type of thinking is most consistent with reality and subsequently dispense with the rest as chaff and empty platitudes. If "man-o-sphere logic" is ineffective or counterproductive, then the only way to find out is to scrutinize it or apply it and observe the outcome.

I believe the "man-o-sphere" logic in regards to woman giving misleading information is something along the lines of:

Women want the genuine article with qualities of X, Y, Z.

They do not want a guy who doesn't have those qualities innately. Naturally, upon receiving the information that these qualities are sought after, guys will try to best of their ability to fake them. The fact that a guy has to be told what to do in the first place is very unappealing in itself.

Shortly -it is against their best interests to be open and honest about what they desire.

Because 1) you will get a lot of fakes and 2) it can be dangerous as it can upset some undesirable guys

Consequently the way to understand woman - if we are following along with this logic - is by observing how they act and react and not by listening and believing to what say necessarily.

Or to rephrase - they want you to be a MAN and act like a MAN, and not to be told to be a man and act like a man.

If you have to be told to be more like a man, you're not it obviously.

On top of it, these desires contain certain "manly physical and appearance" qualities that can't really be faked either way.

Eh, instead of poking holes in so called "man-o-sphere" logic, you just reject it outright as a matter of principle. Why would anyone reject logic, especially if it makes sense?

Unfortunately, this kind of logic and thinking has already entered mainstream internet consciousness via memes and such, and the only way to address it is to face it head on.

And if you can't then what does it mean?

I'm not part of the 'man-o-sphere' (got married at 22, so no time for 'dating'), but I'm not sure what exactly you're saying. No one marries another for 'inherent value' You marry for looks, money, reproductive capacity, etc. By its nature monogamy means looking for more than the inherent value, because if we just considered inherent value, all prospects would be equal, and clearly they are not.

I don't know OP nor do I know their intent with their comment but taking it at face value the idea that men's value will gradually increase so long as they are successful and by inference women's value will either stagnate or decline and eventually women will have no choice but to give a man his chance is at best man-o-sphere adjacent ideology. Perhaps it's just a mixing of words and that was not the intent of the OP.

I don't think we're talking about the same concept though. You're touching on preferences and in general attraction which is just a normal part of being and doesn't represent some kind of value system where you have high-value and low-value people.

>Actually talking to the opposite sex even in a casual way is a really good way to get over this type of thinking.

Talking to the sex you're attracted to will result, at best, in what people of that sex think they want, not what they actually want and do to get it, at worst, in some unempathetic platitude or even outright insults.

> to the sex you're attracted

Yes, it's not what I typed but this is what I meant. I think from there it's just the normal process of getting to know people. Much better than seeing it as a transaction and a push/pull of low-value and high-value system.