|
Sup TL! Haven't been playing much BW recently, but there are some other things that I have questions (bolded) about:
1. I got my best minesweeper time down to 133 on expert! Man does it feel weird to get like 135 and 138 and have it not be a new record.
Does anyone have any tips for how to get my time down further? Usually I hit a plateau and then eventually overcome it and I'm sure I'll keep improving with practice but maybe there are larger scale things I need to know?
2. My ultimate (frisbee) team is in a contest on facebook where winning is worth $1400. We are only ~200 out of first place, so we are trying to get as many people as possible to first "like" this page and then "like" this page as the most "likes" decides the winner.
Any ideas for how to accomplish this? We have a table on campus and are putting up posters and stuff, but I worry that it won't be enough because our school is not very large. My only one so far was to make an image that went something like "1: Like this page 2: Like this page 3: Shit bricks" in order to essentially trick people into doing it but that is kind of a dick move so I don't really want to do that and I can't think of anything else.
If you want to help me out and do that yourself it's appreciated but I don't think I'm supposed to ask for that sort of thing? I tried to talk to a mod on irc but couldn't find one, so I'm erring on the side of caution : 3
3. I was talking about ladder theory with some people and a bunch of stuff came up. When I was younger I subscribed to it mostly wholesale, but now (largely because of this conversation) I am much more skeptical - it seems less like truth and more like something that resonates with the [high school geek who doesn't do very well with the ladies]-type that I'm sure we have plenty of here at TL (the volume of girl blogs notwithstanding).
But the biggest thing that I am curious about is the idea that women have two ladders; a "real" ladder and a "friends" ladder. In english - women think of some of their male acquaintances as "friends", i.e. people in whom they have zero interest in a sexual/romantic relationship with.
Therefore, I ask the females of TL to give their thoughts on the matter - do you do anything remotely like categorizing your male acquaintances in this way, or is ladder theory total bullshit?
PS - I am hoping that this thread will produce something useful and not a total shitfest of people flaming each other, so bear that in mind if you're going to respond
 
|
minesweeper - lol i got good at this while playing BW.
anyways... about the ladder theory. i didn't read all the stuff from the link, i don't agree on some of the stuffs. but regarding your question whether women have two ladders -- well, for me, that's true.
may be even more ladders. let's see:
(1) friends - someone you could trust, etc.
(2) acquaitance
(3) someone you have an attraction with but you don't want to do anything about it e.g. celebrity crush
(4) someone you have an attraction with and you want to pursue it e.g. someone you could actually fall in love with
i don't exactly know how do i categorize a guy, the pie chart on the link does not really apply to me. i guess it only applies on the first meeting with a guy but it changes once i get to know the person. so, if at first i categorize someone to "friends" ladder, he may eventually move to "real" ladder depending on circumstances.
|
marcoso
Brazil818 Posts
lol minesweeper
(1) From what I've experienced, the mouse is very important. I used a microsoft intellimouse back in the day. This year I played with a microsoft comfort optical and it's frustrating. Casual users hardly notice the accuracy difference, but gamers do; (2) the most important imo is to play without thinking. With a 133s mark, I suppose you're already used to the various mine positions based on the numbers you get; the following is very obvious but I'll cite anyway: (3) double click the smaller numbers to save clicks; (4) never look at the time count.
I hope this helps you get to the 110-120 mark.
EDIT: about the ladder, I'm not a girl, but it's pretty simple: it's not completely bullshit. Like the one above said, a "friend" can move to "real". Conversely, a "real" may move to "friend", but then again go back to "real" (realizing he was just disguised as "friend"). Also, a "friend" that becomes a "real" is still a friend, but sometimes when these should go back to "friend" only the go to the acquaitance group.
A quote from Stendhal, a French writer that died two centuries ago, may answer your question: "a very small degree of hope is sufficient to cause the birth of love."
Only rare (I dare say drastic) cases never mix these two ladders.
|
The ladder theory is pretty real, not every female realizes that they do it, but they 95% of the time do.
It's possible to move from the categories, but if you have to ask the question you're not good enough to do it. The worst thing is when a girl strings you along and you can't tell which ladder you're on. I think I do that to at least a few guys I know, and they are on different ladders too... which makes it all the more confusing for them. xD But I mean in my situation you could just ask me and I'd tell you which one you're on.
Easiest thing to do if you don't have a lot of experience is just to go for the obvious ones. If a girl likes you she won't make it hard for you to hang out with her, so if there's a lot of oh...but I'm busy etc. then you should probably move on. If she's like oh I'm busy BUT we can hang out next --- then you should keep going.
|
Perhaps I overestimated the number of female TL members >__>
|
On October 22 2010 05:58 Crunchums wrote:
Perhaps I overestimated the number of female TL members >__>
lol maybe they just don't read blog often...
|
On October 22 2010 05:58 Crunchums wrote:
Perhaps I overestimated the number of female TL members >__>
Pretty sure you underestimated it, but maybe the ones that arent known yet just dont wanna be known as girls :D
|
The ladder theory is real, but should be taken with a large grain of salt, at least from my perspective.
I personally believe that human relationships (platonic or not) are very fluid entities, particularly between peers and particularly between those of opposite sexes if the parties are both heterosexual (or bi). I characterize these relationships along a spectrum from platonic to romantic to sexual. Actually, I think what really happens is that there's a 3-axis graph where each guy I'm friends with (or involved with) has an (x, y, z) coordinate based on the answers to these three questions:
How much do I intellectually respect this guy?
How much do I get along with this guy on an emotional level?
How much do I want to sleep with this guy?
There are more than a few guys I'm friends with who rate highly on one or two of these questions but not highly on the third, so they're not in the optimal zone for a potential relationship. If a guy rates highly enough on two of them and I'm single, I'm generally willing to at least give a relationship a shot and hope that the third rating gets higher as time goes on and I understand the guy better. If a guy rates highly enough with me on sexual attractiveness and one of the other questions and we're both single, it might be a hookup situation. Those have generally worked out fine for me as long as both of us were clear on the nature of the situation and its limits (other times they've been pretty damn messy).
So, a typology (obviously most guys fall within the extremes of low and high for each axis - these are not strictly binary variables) :
Legend: (intelligence factor, emotional factor, sexual attractiveness)
WHEN SINGLE:
(High, high, high) --> strong potential relationship
(high, high, low) --> med-low potential relationship, high potential good friend
(high, low, high) --> med-low potential relationship, strong potential business/professional contact, medium potential hookup
(high, low, low) --> strong potential business/professional contact, low potential close friend/relationship
(low, high, high) --> high potential hookup
(low, high, low) --> occasional hangout friend
(low, low, high) --> med-low potential hookup
(low, low, low) --> best limited to T-Pain and not me (she hit da flo' / next thing you know ...)
WHEN IN A RELATIONSHIP:
- Take out all the hookup and potential relationship references in the above - if a type now has nothing next to it, assume that I basically ignore them.
When I'm in a relationship, my perspective on evaluating guys based on this system changes a lot. Sexual attractiveness and emotional compatibility tend to recede into the background - if I'm meeting new guy friends, I generally want them to be people I can have interesting discussions with and get along with without pulling our own respective hair out. It's well and good if I find them attractive, but it's not as big of a factor in getting to know them as it is when I'm single.
So, to summarize, I think the ladder theory does work, but up to a point. Maybe it's easier when girls/women are younger to divide the heterosexual guys they know into two simple groups, but I think as you get older and acquire more experience and meet more people, you start to realize that it's a bit reductive to treat your male friends/romantic partners that way. I mean, when it comes down to it if you asked me "would you sleep with/be in a relationship with male friend/acquaintance x?" I'd be able to straight up tell you, but with the understanding that it's a rather decontextualized decision. Maybe it's a guy I've just met and I don't know enough about him yet to really judge, or maybe I've known him for most of my life, or maybe we kind of had a thing once but it didn't work out - you just can't get those nuances across without taking it on a case-by-case basis.
Hope that helps.
|
Not too sure about the whole ladder theory, but nice work on the minesweeper score 
I just recently hit a 80.89 then 79.20 out of nowhere, guess its all the practice while I watch GSL haha.
To reach a new high score I generally have to go through somewhat of a process. First off, take a break. Seriously. After a new highscore or some burnout, take a couple days or a week off. Getting back into it after that, just practice for a little while without really going for highscores. Think about the maths involved, figure out exactly what to do in common situations so you don't have to do that during play. I usually do a bit of probability work on boards where I had no idea what was going on, trying to figure out what would have been the best moves to take etc.
Next stage is to play non flagging for a while. Its a fun challenge in itself, but will really speed up your regular play by reducing how much you rely on flags. Once you get a bit bored of that, head back to flagging, get a nice atmosphere where you can concentrate and go from there 
|
whoa people posted and I totally did not see ![[image loading]](http://forums.goodgamery.com/images/smilies/pmo_shock.gif)
I got my time down to 129
I am pretty sure I rely on double clicking and flagging way too much. Practicing without flags sounds like working on your macro in BW or eating your vegetables - good for you but not very fun. Still, I will try it as a change of pace some time in the near future - though I am scared that my resulting time is going to be atrocious : S
|
111, stop playing minesweeper is my advice, but if you do, you want to get in the habit of flagging as little as possible
don't bother with females, ladder theory is kind of true, but not that important unless your main goal is to get laid
having a life a is over rated
there
|
after many tries, I was able to beat it without using a single flag
...479 lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://forums.goodgamery.com/images/smilies/pmo_thrust.gif)
