|
We are extremely close to shutting down this thread for the same reasons the PUA thread was shut down. While some of the time this thread contains actual discussion with people asking help and people giving nice advice, it often gets derailed by rubbish that should not be here. The moderation team will be trying to steer this thread in a different direction from now on.
Posts of the following nature are banned:
1) ANYTHING regarding PUA. If your post contains the words 'alpha' or 'beta' or anything of that sort please don't hit post.
2) Stupid brags. You can tell us about your nice success stories with someone, but posts such as 'lol 50 Tinder matches' are a no-no.
3) Any misogynistic bullshit, including discussion about rape culture.
4) One night stands and random sex. These are basically brags that invariably devolve into gender role discussions and misogynistic comments.
Last chance, guys. This thread is for dating advice and sharing dating stories. While gender roles, sociocultural norms, and our biological imperative to reproduce are all tangentially related, these subjects are not the main purpose of the thread. Please AVOID these discussions. If you want to discuss them at length, go to PMs or start a blog. If you disagree with someone's ideologies, state that you disagree with them and why they won't work from a dating standpoint and move on. We will not tolerate any lengthy derailments that aren't directly about dating. |
On January 04 2013 10:42 drowisimba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 10:37 r.Evo wrote:On January 04 2013 10:34 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:32 rezoacken wrote:
That's sad but that doesn't excuse being such a prick. I gave my advice and you started trolling me. Who's the prick? Your advice is "I know girls don't look for smart guys." - which is terrible advice. You keep repeating that as if it was a mantra, it's not. It's bullshit. That wasn't really the advice. I made a big post that explains my reasoning. And no, it's not bullshit. Men around 95-105 IQ get way, way, way more girls than men that are 140+. It's just fact. Smart people tend to get pretty boring hobbies, or at least hobbies that don't attract the median people (which most people are, for obvious reasons). They also tend to have anti-social behaviors.
I'm claiming that my success with women comes from being smarter than the competition. If someone has "anti-social behaviors" but is incapable of adjusting to his environment to compensate for that, incapable of solving the "social problem" at hand, incapable of learning the tricks of the required communication for it - then maybe he isn't that smart after all. You could argue that smart people have less of an interest in dealing with lots of people but in that case... there is no big reason to complain about it.
Hobbies that don't attract the median people? I have successfully approached with Nydus Canal references, IT language and with trying to figure out how to clean a clock from the 50ies. Delivery and social intelligence are much, much more important than content.
Obviously for a longer relationship you probably should have some common interest but none of the things you mention so far are more than excuses to keep feeling sorry for yourself instead of actively working on changing the situation you're in.
|
On January 04 2013 10:52 drowisimba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 10:50 sam!zdat wrote:On January 04 2013 10:45 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:43 sam!zdat wrote:
you're confusing statistical tendency with direct causation, is the point No. I explained the statistical tendency. There is causality. It would be obvious to you, if you weren't so politically corrrect. it's funny how you know absolutely nothing about me the point is we think your explanation is what we call in the business "bullshit" of course if you are smart you are going to face some special obstacles when it comes to dating. saying that therefore "girls don't like smart guys" is puerile Well, you haven't pointed to a single reason why. You just post your stupid bullshit over and over again. Get lost. To realize why I'm right you just have to realize the following: 1) Smart people tend to be more introverted than dumber people. 2) Introverted people tend to get laid less than extroverted people. Done and done.
see now you are just trumpeting your correlation causation fallacy and feeling self-righteous about it
|
On January 04 2013 10:02 drowisimba wrote:
See, this is what I mean.
I'm battling people that can't comprehend things. You make your posts that you think has relevance, but hasn't. This is why I can't stand people. This is why being smart sucks, because you don't really belong anywhere. You see holes in people's reasoning, and you cannot explain it to them because they will not understand. It's a bit annoying...
Goodbye.
What value is there in trying to put people down by insulting their intelligence or knowledge, or calling them "sheep"? What does the world gain? What do you gain? It seems to me you are only achieving for yourself annoyance and frustration. Smartness is far, far more than an IQ test.
|
On January 04 2013 10:52 drowisimba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 10:50 sam!zdat wrote:On January 04 2013 10:45 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:43 sam!zdat wrote:
you're confusing statistical tendency with direct causation, is the point No. I explained the statistical tendency. There is causality. It would be obvious to you, if you weren't so politically corrrect. it's funny how you know absolutely nothing about me the point is we think your explanation is what we call in the business "bullshit" of course if you are smart you are going to face some special obstacles when it comes to dating. saying that therefore "girls don't like smart guys" is puerile Well, you haven't pointed to a single reason why. You just post your stupid bullshit over and over again. Get lost. To realize why I'm right you just have to realize the following: 1) Smart people tend to be more introverted than dumber people. 2) Introverted people tend to get laid less than extroverted people. Done and done.
3) Introverted people don't like interacting with people as much and therefor like to get laid less than extroverted people.
On a more serious note, if an "introverted" person chooses to get laid more he has exactly the same tools at his disposal as someone who is "extroverted". He has a brain, a mouth, some limbs and a dick. If he - for whatever reason - doesn't WANT to make that conscious choice that's his problem. Not a problem of his intelligence, the girls priorities or societies.
Unless you'd like to claim that "introverted" people are incapable of the social interaction that leads to getting laid, but so far I assumed we're not talking about autism.
|
having no love life for 3 years and also no dating prevents you from most (27 years here ... jaeh i had enouth wih 24 i saw ever dating brings me just less starcraft time !)
|
On January 04 2013 11:00 Mstring wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 10:02 drowisimba wrote:
See, this is what I mean.
I'm battling people that can't comprehend things. You make your posts that you think has relevance, but hasn't. This is why I can't stand people. This is why being smart sucks, because you don't really belong anywhere. You see holes in people's reasoning, and you cannot explain it to them because they will not understand. It's a bit annoying...
Goodbye. What value is there in trying to put people down by insulting their intelligence or knowledge, or calling them "sheep"? What does the world gain? What do you gain? It seems to me you are only achieving for yourself annoyance and frustration. Smartness is far, far more than an IQ test.
I was being trolled and got angry. That's all.
With smart I meant IQ-wise (it's a good scale, but not politically correct obviously).
|
On January 04 2013 10:57 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 10:52 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:50 sam!zdat wrote:On January 04 2013 10:45 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:43 sam!zdat wrote:
you're confusing statistical tendency with direct causation, is the point No. I explained the statistical tendency. There is causality. It would be obvious to you, if you weren't so politically corrrect. it's funny how you know absolutely nothing about me the point is we think your explanation is what we call in the business "bullshit" of course if you are smart you are going to face some special obstacles when it comes to dating. saying that therefore "girls don't like smart guys" is puerile Well, you haven't pointed to a single reason why. You just post your stupid bullshit over and over again. Get lost. To realize why I'm right you just have to realize the following: 1) Smart people tend to be more introverted than dumber people. 2) Introverted people tend to get laid less than extroverted people. Done and done. see now you are just trumpeting your correlation causation fallacy and feeling self-righteous about it
What?
Do you even know what you're saying? Have you just learned the correlation-is-not-causation-fallacy and think it applies to everything?
Fact remains: Smart people tend to be introverted, and introverted people tend to get laid less.
I mean, it's not that controversial, is it?
|
On January 04 2013 10:57 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 10:42 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:37 r.Evo wrote:On January 04 2013 10:34 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:32 rezoacken wrote:
That's sad but that doesn't excuse being such a prick. I gave my advice and you started trolling me. Who's the prick? Your advice is "I know girls don't look for smart guys." - which is terrible advice. You keep repeating that as if it was a mantra, it's not. It's bullshit. That wasn't really the advice. I made a big post that explains my reasoning. And no, it's not bullshit. Men around 95-105 IQ get way, way, way more girls than men that are 140+. It's just fact. Smart people tend to get pretty boring hobbies, or at least hobbies that don't attract the median people (which most people are, for obvious reasons). They also tend to have anti-social behaviors. I'm claiming that my success with women comes from being smarter than the competition. If someone has "anti-social behaviors" but is incapable of adjusting to his environment to compensate for that, incapable of solving the "social problem" at hand, incapable of learning the tricks of the required communication for it - then maybe he isn't that smart after all. You could argue that smart people have less of an interest in dealing with lots of people but in that case... there is no big reason to complain about it. Hobbies that don't attract the median people? I have successfully approached with Nydus Canal references, IT language and with trying to figure out how to clean a clock from the 50ies. Delivery and social intelligence are much, much more important than content. Obviously for a longer relationship you probably should have some common interest but none of the things you mention so far are more than excuses to keep feeling sorry for yourself instead of actively working on changing the situation you're in.
Slightly jumping into the conversation at this point. I haven't read more posts from the previous pages to determine more context, but there's a slight difference between your points.
Smarts has little to do with IQ. You can be extremely smart regardless of your IQ. Your IQ is simply a measure of logical deduction, while smarts can extend into social interactions, i.e. street smarts, or school grade performance, or a variety of other areas.
It's a lot easier to say higher IQ levels don't attract as many females, because it is true in general that high IQ people see things differently from the median. Whether this is correlation or not doesn't disprove the fact. IQ is not "smarts", so you guys seem to be confusing that idea.
If you are "smart", you are basically an alpha, because that term is way too general. You need to specify because smart is ambiguous.
ninja'd correction there :d
|
On January 04 2013 10:56 Alryk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 10:02 drowisimba wrote:
See, this is what I mean.
I'm battling people that can't comprehend things. You make your posts that you think has relevance, but hasn't. This is why I can't stand people. This is why being smart sucks, because you don't really belong anywhere. You see holes in people's reasoning, and you cannot explain it to them because they will not understand. It's a bit annoying...
Goodbye. The irony is the grammar error.  No need to be so antagonistic.
I'm not from an english-speaking country nor have I ever lived in one, and I typed quickly. Oh, please forgive my grieving error!
I still don't see the error in the second sentence you bolded though, so maybe I just suck. Or you.
"You see holes in people's reasoning." Nope. I don't see what's wrong with it.
|
On January 04 2013 11:06 drowisimba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 10:57 sam!zdat wrote:On January 04 2013 10:52 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:50 sam!zdat wrote:On January 04 2013 10:45 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:43 sam!zdat wrote:
you're confusing statistical tendency with direct causation, is the point No. I explained the statistical tendency. There is causality. It would be obvious to you, if you weren't so politically corrrect. it's funny how you know absolutely nothing about me the point is we think your explanation is what we call in the business "bullshit" of course if you are smart you are going to face some special obstacles when it comes to dating. saying that therefore "girls don't like smart guys" is puerile Well, you haven't pointed to a single reason why. You just post your stupid bullshit over and over again. Get lost. To realize why I'm right you just have to realize the following: 1) Smart people tend to be more introverted than dumber people. 2) Introverted people tend to get laid less than extroverted people. Done and done. see now you are just trumpeting your correlation causation fallacy and feeling self-righteous about it What? Do you even know what you're saying? Have you just learned the correlation-is-not-causation-fallacy and think it applies to everything? Fact remains: Smart people tend to be introverted, and introverted people tend to get laid less. I mean, it's not that controversial, is it?
Smart people also tend to be able to analyze & solve complex situations more efficiently and recognize emerging patterns better than "dumber" people.
Pretty much all pioneers of the modern PUA scene for example got their form of success by, well... being huge fucking nerds about it.
|
On January 04 2013 11:08 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 10:57 r.Evo wrote:On January 04 2013 10:42 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:37 r.Evo wrote:On January 04 2013 10:34 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:32 rezoacken wrote:
That's sad but that doesn't excuse being such a prick. I gave my advice and you started trolling me. Who's the prick? Your advice is "I know girls don't look for smart guys." - which is terrible advice. You keep repeating that as if it was a mantra, it's not. It's bullshit. That wasn't really the advice. I made a big post that explains my reasoning. And no, it's not bullshit. Men around 95-105 IQ get way, way, way more girls than men that are 140+. It's just fact. Smart people tend to get pretty boring hobbies, or at least hobbies that don't attract the median people (which most people are, for obvious reasons). They also tend to have anti-social behaviors. I'm claiming that my success with women comes from being smarter than the competition. If someone has "anti-social behaviors" but is incapable of adjusting to his environment to compensate for that, incapable of solving the "social problem" at hand, incapable of learning the tricks of the required communication for it - then maybe he isn't that smart after all. You could argue that smart people have less of an interest in dealing with lots of people but in that case... there is no big reason to complain about it. Hobbies that don't attract the median people? I have successfully approached with Nydus Canal references, IT language and with trying to figure out how to clean a clock from the 50ies. Delivery and social intelligence are much, much more important than content. Obviously for a longer relationship you probably should have some common interest but none of the things you mention so far are more than excuses to keep feeling sorry for yourself instead of actively working on changing the situation you're in. Slightly jumping into the conversation at this point. I haven't read more posts from the previous pages to determine more context, but there's a slight difference between your points. Smarts has little to do with IQ. You can be extremely smart regardless of your IQ. Your IQ is simply a measure of logical deduction, while smarts can extend into social interactions, i.e. street smarts, or school grade performance, or a variety of other areas. It's a lot easier to say higher IQ levels don't attract as many females, because it is true in general that high IQ people see things differently from the median. Whether this is correlation or not doesn't disprove the fact. IQ is not "smarts", so you guys seem to be confusing that idea. ninja'd correction there :d
You're probably right. My problem is that "Women aren't attracted by smart people" is a dumb statement because being smart implies being able to handle complex social situations well to me.
"Women aren't attracted by people with a high IQ" is a dumb statement because it's an arbitrary scale that's not relevant when it comes to dating. Like, I'm not asking whether a potential male buddy has a high IQ when I want to make new friends. I talk to him and if we click, we click.
The only way I can see that point of view being argued successfully is if you say that "people are attracted by having things in common" -> "people at a similar IQ have a higher chance to get along with each other" -> "it's more rare that two people at an IQ of 140 meet than two people at an IQ of 100"
HOWEVER, that still doesn't imply that the IQ is what makes those people unattractive. Welp. gg.
|
On January 04 2013 11:10 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 11:06 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:57 sam!zdat wrote:On January 04 2013 10:52 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:50 sam!zdat wrote:On January 04 2013 10:45 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:43 sam!zdat wrote:
you're confusing statistical tendency with direct causation, is the point No. I explained the statistical tendency. There is causality. It would be obvious to you, if you weren't so politically corrrect. it's funny how you know absolutely nothing about me the point is we think your explanation is what we call in the business "bullshit" of course if you are smart you are going to face some special obstacles when it comes to dating. saying that therefore "girls don't like smart guys" is puerile Well, you haven't pointed to a single reason why. You just post your stupid bullshit over and over again. Get lost. To realize why I'm right you just have to realize the following: 1) Smart people tend to be more introverted than dumber people. 2) Introverted people tend to get laid less than extroverted people. Done and done. see now you are just trumpeting your correlation causation fallacy and feeling self-righteous about it What? Do you even know what you're saying? Have you just learned the correlation-is-not-causation-fallacy and think it applies to everything? Fact remains: Smart people tend to be introverted, and introverted people tend to get laid less. I mean, it's not that controversial, is it? Smart people also tend to be able to analyze & solve complex situations more efficiently and recognize emerging patterns better than "dumber" people. Pretty much all pioneers of the modern PUA scene for example got their form of success by, well... being huge fucking nerds about it.
I guess so, but it's not a complex issue getting a girl or getting laid (if you're not thinking about it, which smart people tend to do too much).
|
That autism line was hilarious, r.Evo. 
|
On January 04 2013 10:42 drowisimba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 10:37 r.Evo wrote:On January 04 2013 10:34 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:32 rezoacken wrote:
That's sad but that doesn't excuse being such a prick. I gave my advice and you started trolling me. Who's the prick? Your advice is "I know girls don't look for smart guys." - which is terrible advice. You keep repeating that as if it was a mantra, it's not. It's bullshit. That wasn't really the advice. I made a big post that explains my reasoning. And no, it's not bullshit. Men around 95-105 IQ get way, way, way more girls than men that are 140+. It's just fact. Smart people tend to get pretty boring hobbies, or at least hobbies that don't attract the median people (which most people are, for obvious reasons). They also tend to have anti-social behaviors.
Where are your data for this "fact" because as far as I can tell you're just extrapolating your personal observations which are SUPER TINGED with your insane personal bias.
Like, none of what you posted is "fact", it's just stuff that you've confirmed through imperfect personal observation and experience. I tend to find the exact opposite, but I'm not going to go around spewing that my opinions and self-tendencies are FACT.
|
On January 04 2013 11:14 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 11:08 Blisse wrote:On January 04 2013 10:57 r.Evo wrote:On January 04 2013 10:42 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:37 r.Evo wrote:On January 04 2013 10:34 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:32 rezoacken wrote:
That's sad but that doesn't excuse being such a prick. I gave my advice and you started trolling me. Who's the prick? Your advice is "I know girls don't look for smart guys." - which is terrible advice. You keep repeating that as if it was a mantra, it's not. It's bullshit. That wasn't really the advice. I made a big post that explains my reasoning. And no, it's not bullshit. Men around 95-105 IQ get way, way, way more girls than men that are 140+. It's just fact. Smart people tend to get pretty boring hobbies, or at least hobbies that don't attract the median people (which most people are, for obvious reasons). They also tend to have anti-social behaviors. I'm claiming that my success with women comes from being smarter than the competition. If someone has "anti-social behaviors" but is incapable of adjusting to his environment to compensate for that, incapable of solving the "social problem" at hand, incapable of learning the tricks of the required communication for it - then maybe he isn't that smart after all. You could argue that smart people have less of an interest in dealing with lots of people but in that case... there is no big reason to complain about it. Hobbies that don't attract the median people? I have successfully approached with Nydus Canal references, IT language and with trying to figure out how to clean a clock from the 50ies. Delivery and social intelligence are much, much more important than content. Obviously for a longer relationship you probably should have some common interest but none of the things you mention so far are more than excuses to keep feeling sorry for yourself instead of actively working on changing the situation you're in. Slightly jumping into the conversation at this point. I haven't read more posts from the previous pages to determine more context, but there's a slight difference between your points. Smarts has little to do with IQ. You can be extremely smart regardless of your IQ. Your IQ is simply a measure of logical deduction, while smarts can extend into social interactions, i.e. street smarts, or school grade performance, or a variety of other areas. It's a lot easier to say higher IQ levels don't attract as many females, because it is true in general that high IQ people see things differently from the median. Whether this is correlation or not doesn't disprove the fact. IQ is not "smarts", so you guys seem to be confusing that idea. ninja'd correction there :d You're probably right. My problem is that "Women aren't attracted by smart people" is a dumb statement because being smart implies being able to handle complex social situations well to me. "Women aren't attracted by people with a high IQ" is a dumb statement because it's an arbitrary scale that's not relevant when it comes to dating. Like, I'm not asking whether a potential male buddy has a high IQ when I want to make new friends. I talk to him and if we click, we click. The only way I can see that point of view being argued successfully is if you say that "people are attracted by having things in common" -> "people at a similar IQ have a higher chance to get along with each other" -> "it's more rare that two people at an IQ of 140 meet than two people at an IQ of 100" HOWEVER, that still doesn't imply that the IQ is what makes those people unattractive. Welp. gg.
The high IQ in itself doesn't make you unattractive, of course. But it correlates with a lot of good and bad things, mostly bad if you're looking to get laid, mostly good if you're looking to learn about quantum physics or earning money or being successful with your job (last two of which are good for getting laid, but still not enough to make the IQ crowd into Don Juans).
|
On January 04 2013 11:17 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 10:42 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:37 r.Evo wrote:On January 04 2013 10:34 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:32 rezoacken wrote:
That's sad but that doesn't excuse being such a prick. I gave my advice and you started trolling me. Who's the prick? Your advice is "I know girls don't look for smart guys." - which is terrible advice. You keep repeating that as if it was a mantra, it's not. It's bullshit. That wasn't really the advice. I made a big post that explains my reasoning. And no, it's not bullshit. Men around 95-105 IQ get way, way, way more girls than men that are 140+. It's just fact. Smart people tend to get pretty boring hobbies, or at least hobbies that don't attract the median people (which most people are, for obvious reasons). They also tend to have anti-social behaviors. Where are your data for this "fact" because as far as I can tell you're just extrapolating your personal observations which are SUPER TINGED with your insane personal bias. Like, none of what you posted is "fact", it's just stuff that you've confirmed through imperfect personal observation and experience. I tend to find the exact opposite, but I'm not going to go around spewing that my opinions and self-tendencies are FACT.
I'm sure there are lots of studies confirming this. I would have thought it was a pretty obvious concept, and easy to realize, but I guess not.
|
On January 04 2013 11:15 drowisimba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 11:10 r.Evo wrote:On January 04 2013 11:06 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:57 sam!zdat wrote:On January 04 2013 10:52 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:50 sam!zdat wrote:On January 04 2013 10:45 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:43 sam!zdat wrote:
you're confusing statistical tendency with direct causation, is the point No. I explained the statistical tendency. There is causality. It would be obvious to you, if you weren't so politically corrrect. it's funny how you know absolutely nothing about me the point is we think your explanation is what we call in the business "bullshit" of course if you are smart you are going to face some special obstacles when it comes to dating. saying that therefore "girls don't like smart guys" is puerile Well, you haven't pointed to a single reason why. You just post your stupid bullshit over and over again. Get lost. To realize why I'm right you just have to realize the following: 1) Smart people tend to be more introverted than dumber people. 2) Introverted people tend to get laid less than extroverted people. Done and done. see now you are just trumpeting your correlation causation fallacy and feeling self-righteous about it What? Do you even know what you're saying? Have you just learned the correlation-is-not-causation-fallacy and think it applies to everything? Fact remains: Smart people tend to be introverted, and introverted people tend to get laid less. I mean, it's not that controversial, is it? Smart people also tend to be able to analyze & solve complex situations more efficiently and recognize emerging patterns better than "dumber" people. Pretty much all pioneers of the modern PUA scene for example got their form of success by, well... being huge fucking nerds about it. I guess so, but it's not a complex issue getting a girl or getting laid (if you're not thinking about it, which smart people tend to do too much).
Yeah, it's totally not a complex issue, and that's why you've never bothered to deal with it?
Come on, dude, just accept that there's something else holding you back besides "being smart", which should OBVIOUSLY BE AN ADVANTAGE.
|
On January 04 2013 11:20 drowisimba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 11:17 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On January 04 2013 10:42 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:37 r.Evo wrote:On January 04 2013 10:34 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:32 rezoacken wrote:
That's sad but that doesn't excuse being such a prick. I gave my advice and you started trolling me. Who's the prick? Your advice is "I know girls don't look for smart guys." - which is terrible advice. You keep repeating that as if it was a mantra, it's not. It's bullshit. That wasn't really the advice. I made a big post that explains my reasoning. And no, it's not bullshit. Men around 95-105 IQ get way, way, way more girls than men that are 140+. It's just fact. Smart people tend to get pretty boring hobbies, or at least hobbies that don't attract the median people (which most people are, for obvious reasons). They also tend to have anti-social behaviors. Where are your data for this "fact" because as far as I can tell you're just extrapolating your personal observations which are SUPER TINGED with your insane personal bias. Like, none of what you posted is "fact", it's just stuff that you've confirmed through imperfect personal observation and experience. I tend to find the exact opposite, but I'm not going to go around spewing that my opinions and self-tendencies are FACT. I'm sure there are lots of studies confirming this. I would have thought it was a pretty obvious concept, and easy to realize, but I guess not.
I asked you to provide support for your statement of "fact"
You said "it's obvious duh"
real
|
On January 04 2013 11:15 drowisimba wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2013 11:10 r.Evo wrote:On January 04 2013 11:06 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:57 sam!zdat wrote:On January 04 2013 10:52 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:50 sam!zdat wrote:On January 04 2013 10:45 drowisimba wrote:On January 04 2013 10:43 sam!zdat wrote:
you're confusing statistical tendency with direct causation, is the point No. I explained the statistical tendency. There is causality. It would be obvious to you, if you weren't so politically corrrect. it's funny how you know absolutely nothing about me the point is we think your explanation is what we call in the business "bullshit" of course if you are smart you are going to face some special obstacles when it comes to dating. saying that therefore "girls don't like smart guys" is puerile Well, you haven't pointed to a single reason why. You just post your stupid bullshit over and over again. Get lost. To realize why I'm right you just have to realize the following: 1) Smart people tend to be more introverted than dumber people. 2) Introverted people tend to get laid less than extroverted people. Done and done. see now you are just trumpeting your correlation causation fallacy and feeling self-righteous about it What? Do you even know what you're saying? Have you just learned the correlation-is-not-causation-fallacy and think it applies to everything? Fact remains: Smart people tend to be introverted, and introverted people tend to get laid less. I mean, it's not that controversial, is it? Smart people also tend to be able to analyze & solve complex situations more efficiently and recognize emerging patterns better than "dumber" people. Pretty much all pioneers of the modern PUA scene for example got their form of success by, well... being huge fucking nerds about it. I guess so, but it's not a complex issue getting a girl or getting laid (if you're not thinking about it, which smart people tend to do too much).
That's a plain and simple limiting belief which you treat as a fact (as is the nature of most limiting believes).
"It's easy to get laid if you're not thinking about it" -> "I'm smart, therefor I'm thinking a lot" -> "It's hard for me to get laid"
There's no causation in that line of thought because the very first statement is incorrect. If you lack a certain (in this case social) skill it is completely valid to learn as much as you can about it, apply that in practice and then practice it until all the thinking gets internalized and becomes second nature. People who are naturally good with women don't process less information than someone who just learned it, they just process it unconsciously because it's about skills they - for whatever reason - learned without being aware of it.
If someone "thinks too much" while trying to get laid he simply didn't have enough practice to internalize it all.
|
Drowisimba, you should become a comedian with material about your experiences with women. Then you'll become more comfortable socially and get laid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
