|
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 November 23 2016 21:51 B.I.G. wrote:
So I once heard somewhere that girls tend to fall for/end up with men that remind them of their fathers or brothers (or other men they grew up very close to). Do you think the same is true vice versa? I'm seeing a girl now that when I think about it in a lot of ways behaves the way I would imagine my sister would behave towards the significant others in her life.
Funny enough her husband has many characteristics in common with me..
You're seeing a girl that has a husband? Did I understand that correctly?
If she cheats on her husband she will probably cheat on you too. Pretty big red flag if you're looking for something serious
|
I think he's refering to his sister's husband.
|
On November 23 2016 21:51 B.I.G. wrote:
So I once heard somewhere that girls tend to fall for/end up with men that remind them of their fathers or brothers (or other men they grew up very close to). Do you think the same is true vice versa? I'm seeing a girl now that when I think about it in a lot of ways behaves the way I would imagine my sister would behave towards the significant others in her life.
Funny enough her husband has many characteristics in common with me..
Don't think there's actual scientific backing for this. When you try hard enough, you can find a lot in common with most people.
|
On November 23 2016 21:51 B.I.G. wrote:
So I once heard somewhere that girls tend to fall for/end up with men that remind them of their fathers or brothers (or other men they grew up very close to). Do you think the same is true vice versa? I'm seeing a girl now that when I think about it in a lot of ways behaves the way I would imagine my sister would behave towards the significant others in her life.
Funny enough her husband has many characteristics in common with me..
Yes, it definitely is true to some extent. Though men usually don't straight up say it very often, it definitely is true that people look for something that reminds them of the people they are close to. Nothing surprising there, really.
|
I don't really know how true that actually is. However you often hear that guys become attracted to women who look like their mothers. I guess it's hard to prove the correlation that you fall for women who look like your mother vs your type just happens to look like your mother.
The whole thing has its own name "Oedipus complex" however which is pretty much this, so there ought to be some truth to it.
|
The personality is another big part. It's not surprising that people want someone with personality tendencies that remind them of family members. It's a good kind of familiarity.
Women are more direct about acknowledging that kind of connection. Men are less direct but it's absolutely there as well.
|
On November 24 2016 00:25 bloodwhore~ wrote:
I don't really know how true that actually is. However you often hear that guys become attracted to women who look like their mothers. I guess it's hard to prove the correlation that you fall for women who look like your mother vs your type just happens to look like your mother.
The whole thing has its own name "Oedipus complex" however which is pretty much this, so there ought to be some truth to it.
Errrmmmm, what? Just because it has a name there has to be some truth to it? How about the Phlogiston theory of combustion?
Freud's psychological theories have almost all been debunked. This one more than most.
|
On November 24 2016 00:34 Acrofales wrote:Errrmmmm, what? Just because it has a name there has to be some truth to it? How about the Phlogiston theory of combustion?
Freud's psychological theories have almost all been debunked. This one more than most.
That wasn't exactly what I wanted to imply  . I was implying that it is a phenonomen which has gotten a lot of traction over the years. I guess I just don't believe that things that would have zero truth to them would be able to survive the scrutiny etc.
|
On November 24 2016 00:34 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:25 bloodwhore~ wrote:
I don't really know how true that actually is. However you often hear that guys become attracted to women who look like their mothers. I guess it's hard to prove the correlation that you fall for women who look like your mother vs your type just happens to look like your mother.
The whole thing has its own name "Oedipus complex" however which is pretty much this, so there ought to be some truth to it. Errrmmmm, what? Just because it has a name there has to be some truth to it? How about the Phlogiston theory of combustion? Freud's psychological theories have almost all been debunked. This one more than most.
theyve been "debunked"? freud is the epicentre of the social sciences. his work on the unconscious undergirds serious contemporary thought. that so many thought so highly of him, either in affirmation or in reaction, is an indication of his importance.
on the other hand the phlogiston theory of combustion is only discussed in footnotes. comparing the two, pointing out that they are both "debunked", is grossly misleading.
|
I think you either choose someone like your parents or someone completely opposed to your parents.
|
On November 24 2016 02:41 Uldridge wrote:
I think you either choose someone like your parents or someone completely opposed to your parents.
That's everyone
also freud was so completely wrong in many of his ideas that I don't understand why he is held in such high esteem by so many
|
On November 24 2016 02:26 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:25 bloodwhore~ wrote:
I don't really know how true that actually is. However you often hear that guys become attracted to women who look like their mothers. I guess it's hard to prove the correlation that you fall for women who look like your mother vs your type just happens to look like your mother.
The whole thing has its own name "Oedipus complex" however which is pretty much this, so there ought to be some truth to it. Errrmmmm, what? Just because it has a name there has to be some truth to it? How about the Phlogiston theory of combustion? Freud's psychological theories have almost all been debunked. This one more than most. theyve been "debunked"? freud is the epicentre of the social sciences [citation needed]. his work on the unconscious undergirds serious contemporary thought [citation needed]. that so many thought so highly of him, either in affirmation or in reaction, is an indication of his importance. on the other hand the phlogiston theory of combustion is only discussed in footnotes. comparing the two, pointing out that they are both "debunked", is grossly misleading.
I edited that for you as if it's a wikipedia entry. Speaking of wikipedia, here is the "criticism" section on the Oedipus Complex, which is pretty clear in stating that it is either (1) pseudoscientific poppycock because it has no testable predictions, or (2) is just plain wrong.
In his 1927 book Sex and Repression in Savage Society, anthropologist Bronisław Malinowski demonstrated that the Oedipus complex is not universal. Some contemporary psychoanalysts agree with the idea of the Oedipus complex to varying degrees; Hans Keller proposed it is so "at least in Western societies"  40] and others consider that ethnologists already have established its temporal and geographic universality.[41] Nonetheless, few psychoanalysts disagree that the "child then entered an Oedipal phase [...] [which] involved an acute awareness of a complicated triangle involving mother, father, and child" and that "both positive and negative Oedipal themes are typically observable in development".[42] Despite evidence of parent–child conflict, the evolutionary psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson note that it is not for sexual possession of the opposite sex-parent; thus, in Homicide (1988), they proposed that the Oedipus complex yields few testable predictions, because they found no evidence of the Oedipus complex in people.[43] In No More Silly Love Songs: A Realist's Guide to Romance (2010), Anouchka Grose says that "a large number of people, these days believe that Freud's Oedipus complex is defunct [...] 'disproven', or simply found unnecessary, sometime in the last century".[44] Moreover, from the post-modern perspective, Grose contends that "the Oedipus complex isn't really like that. It's more a way of explaining how human beings are socialised [...] learning to deal with disappointment".[44] The elementary understanding being that "You have to stop trying to be everything for your primary carer, and get on with being something for the rest of the world".[45] Nonetheless, the open question remains whether or not such a post-Lacanian interpretation "stretches the Oedipus complex to a point where it almost doesn't look like Freud's any more".[44] Parent-child and sibling-sibling incestuous unions are almost universally forbidden.[46] An explanation for this incest taboo is that rather than instinctual sexual desire, there is instinctual sexual aversion against these unions (See Westermarck effect). Steven Pinker wrote that "The idea that boys want to sleep with their mothers strikes most men as the silliest thing they have ever heard. Obviously, it did not seem so to Freud, who wrote that as a boy he once had an erotic reaction to watching his mother dressing. But Freud had a wet-nurse, and may not have experienced the early intimacy that would have tipped off his perceptual system that Mrs. Freud was his mother." In Esquisse pour une autoanalyse, Pierre Bourdieu argues that the success of the concept of Oedipus is inseparable from the prestige associated with ancient Greek culture and the relations of domination that are reinforced in the use of this myth. In other words, if Oedipus was Bantu or Baoule, he probably would not have benefited from the coronation of universality. This remark reminds historically and socially situated character of myth founder of psychoanalysis.[47] According to Didier Eribon, the book Anti-Oedipus by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari is "a critique of psychoanalytic normativity and Oedipus (...)" and "(...) a setting oedipinianisme devastating issue of (...) ".[48] Eribon considers the Oedipus complex of Freudian or Lacanian psychoanalysis is an "implausible ideological construct" which is an "inferiorization process of homosexuality".[49] According to Armand Chatard, Freudian representation of the Oedipus complex is little or not supported by empirical data (he relies on Kagan, 1964, Bussey and Bandura, 1999)[50]
I didn't feel like tracking down all the references, but feel free to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex
And just for the record, I'm not contesting Freud's importance as a thinker and one of the founders of modern psychology and its methods. I'm just contesting most of his scientific theories. I also don't think psychoanalysis is a proper scientifc methodology. It might work well in sorting people's problems out, but then again, so does having a good honest conversation with a friend. So... /shrug.
|
Consider the alternative psychological theory-oh of some relevance, the Westermarck Effect.
The Westermarck effect, or reverse sexual imprinting, is a hypothetical psychological effect through which people who live in close domestic proximity during the first few years of their lives become desensitized to sexual attraction. This phenomenon was first hypothesized by Finnish anthropologist Edvard Westermarck in his book The History of Human Marriage (1891) as one explanation for the incest taboo. Observations interpreted as evidence for the Westermarck effect have since been made in many places and cultures, including in the Israeli kibbutz system, and the Chinese Shim-pua marriage customs, as well as in biological-related families.
In the case of the Israeli kibbutzim (collective farms), children were reared somewhat communally in peer groups, based on age, not biological relation. A study of the marriage patterns of these children later in life revealed that out of the nearly 3,000 marriages that occurred across the kibbutz system, only fourteen were between children from the same peer group. Of those fourteen, none had been reared together during the first six years of life. This result suggests that the Westermarck effect operates during the period from birth to the age of six.[1]
When proximity during this critical period does not occur—for example, where a brother and sister are brought up separately, never meeting one another—they may find one another highly sexually attractive when they meet as adults or adolescents, according to the hypothesis of genetic sexual attraction. This supports the theory that the populations exhibiting the Westermarck effect became predominant because of the deleterious effects of inbreeding on those that didn't.
That seems rather reasonably accurate, if incomplete.
I think it's more along the lines of that people want to start a family with the kinds of people who remind them of the positive aspects of their own families, which does make a fair bit of sense. I don't think it's about any explicit attraction to their own parents.
|
![[image loading]](http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/derailer.jpg)
?
User was warned for this post
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 24 2016 03:08 Acrofales wrote:
And just for the record, I'm not contesting Freud's importance as a thinker and one of the founders of modern psychology and its methods. I'm just contesting most of his scientific theories. I also don't think psychoanalysis is a proper scientifc methodology. It might work well in sorting people's problems out, but then again, so does having a good honest conversation with a friend. So... /shrug.
Well, psychology itself isn't very scientific in terms of proper methodology or falsification. God knows we try but we often find ourselves swept along by current trends. Usually they are discarded when they fail to be coherent or unfashionable, not through rigorous experimentation.
On November 24 2016 02:43 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 02:41 Uldridge wrote:
I think you either choose someone like your parents or someone completely opposed to your parents. That's everyone also freud was so completely wrong in many of his ideas that I don't understand why he is held in such high esteem by so many
He was the creator of psychoanalysis and at the forefront of psychology as it developed into a respectable field. His ideas may seem utterly ridiculous today, but so do Aristotle's ideas on the natural world.
On November 24 2016 04:05 Artisreal wrote:?
I only see some nice gravel ruined by a unfortunately placed train.
|
On November 24 2016 03:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 02:26 IgnE wrote:On November 24 2016 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:25 bloodwhore~ wrote:
I don't really know how true that actually is. However you often hear that guys become attracted to women who look like their mothers. I guess it's hard to prove the correlation that you fall for women who look like your mother vs your type just happens to look like your mother.
The whole thing has its own name "Oedipus complex" however which is pretty much this, so there ought to be some truth to it. Errrmmmm, what? Just because it has a name there has to be some truth to it? How about the Phlogiston theory of combustion? Freud's psychological theories have almost all been debunked. This one more than most. theyve been "debunked"? freud is the epicentre of the social sciences [citation needed]. his work on the unconscious undergirds serious contemporary thought [citation needed]. that so many thought so highly of him, either in affirmation or in reaction, is an indication of his importance. on the other hand the phlogiston theory of combustion is only discussed in footnotes. comparing the two, pointing out that they are both "debunked", is grossly misleading. I edited that for you as if it's a wikipedia entry. Speaking of wikipedia, here is the "criticism" section on the Oedipus Complex, which is pretty clear in stating that it is either (1) pseudoscientific poppycock because it has no testable predictions, or (2) is just plain wrong. Show nested quote +In his 1927 book Sex and Repression in Savage Society, anthropologist Bronisław Malinowski demonstrated that the Oedipus complex is not universal. Some contemporary psychoanalysts agree with the idea of the Oedipus complex to varying degrees; Hans Keller proposed it is so "at least in Western societies" 40] and others consider that ethnologists already have established its temporal and geographic universality.[41] Nonetheless, few psychoanalysts disagree that the "child then entered an Oedipal phase [...] [which] involved an acute awareness of a complicated triangle involving mother, father, and child" and that "both positive and negative Oedipal themes are typically observable in development".[42] Despite evidence of parent–child conflict, the evolutionary psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson note that it is not for sexual possession of the opposite sex-parent; thus, in Homicide (1988), they proposed that the Oedipus complex yields few testable predictions, because they found no evidence of the Oedipus complex in people.[43] In No More Silly Love Songs: A Realist's Guide to Romance (2010), Anouchka Grose says that "a large number of people, these days believe that Freud's Oedipus complex is defunct [...] 'disproven', or simply found unnecessary, sometime in the last century".[44] Moreover, from the post-modern perspective, Grose contends that "the Oedipus complex isn't really like that. It's more a way of explaining how human beings are socialised [...] learning to deal with disappointment".[44] The elementary understanding being that "You have to stop trying to be everything for your primary carer, and get on with being something for the rest of the world".[45] Nonetheless, the open question remains whether or not such a post-Lacanian interpretation "stretches the Oedipus complex to a point where it almost doesn't look like Freud's any more".[44] Parent-child and sibling-sibling incestuous unions are almost universally forbidden.[46] An explanation for this incest taboo is that rather than instinctual sexual desire, there is instinctual sexual aversion against these unions (See Westermarck effect). Steven Pinker wrote that "The idea that boys want to sleep with their mothers strikes most men as the silliest thing they have ever heard. Obviously, it did not seem so to Freud, who wrote that as a boy he once had an erotic reaction to watching his mother dressing. But Freud had a wet-nurse, and may not have experienced the early intimacy that would have tipped off his perceptual system that Mrs. Freud was his mother." In Esquisse pour une autoanalyse, Pierre Bourdieu argues that the success of the concept of Oedipus is inseparable from the prestige associated with ancient Greek culture and the relations of domination that are reinforced in the use of this myth. In other words, if Oedipus was Bantu or Baoule, he probably would not have benefited from the coronation of universality. This remark reminds historically and socially situated character of myth founder of psychoanalysis.[47] According to Didier Eribon, the book Anti-Oedipus by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari is "a critique of psychoanalytic normativity and Oedipus (...)" and "(...) a setting oedipinianisme devastating issue of (...) ".[48] Eribon considers the Oedipus complex of Freudian or Lacanian psychoanalysis is an "implausible ideological construct" which is an "inferiorization process of homosexuality".[49] According to Armand Chatard, Freudian representation of the Oedipus complex is little or not supported by empirical data (he relies on Kagan, 1964, Bussey and Bandura, 1999)[50] I didn't feel like tracking down all the references, but feel free to do so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complexAnd just for the record, I'm not contesting Freud's importance as a thinker and one of the founders of modern psychology and its methods. I'm just contesting most of his scientific theories. I also don't think psychoanalysis is a proper scientifc methodology. It might work well in sorting people's problems out, but then again, so does having a good honest conversation with a friend. So... /shrug.
its pretty shameful to assert something is debunked without citation, complain that the inevitable counterargument lacks citation, and then quote wikipedia at length which discusses with nuance and subtlety a developing contemporary conversation about the interpretation of said something.
do i need to link the wikipedia on Phlogiston to make my point?
|
On November 24 2016 04:05 Artisreal wrote:?
The next step is for this thread to become a perpetually exploding train wreck. I can't wait to find out what that looks like.
|
On November 24 2016 02:43 solidbebe wrote:
That's everyone
Wait, how is 4 possible choices for a partner equate to everyone?
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 23 2016 21:51 B.I.G. wrote:
So I once heard somewhere that girls tend to fall for/end up with men that remind them of their fathers or brothers (or other men they grew up very close to). Do you think the same is true vice versa? I'm seeing a girl now that when I think about it in a lot of ways behaves the way I would imagine my sister would behave towards the significant others in her life.
Funny enough her husband has many characteristics in common with me..
I guess? People are often drawn to the same positive traits and dynamics initially established in their early peer groups. So sure, people will get into relationships with others who resemble their sisters/mothers/first loves/whatever. Then again, the opposite thing happens a lot too.
|
On November 24 2016 08:57 Uldridge wrote:Wait, how is 4 possible choices for a partner equate to everyone?
You said the complete opposite of your parents or similar to.
People keep talking about this like 'complete opposite' or 'similar' in terms of personality is something well defined. It isn't. You can find many things in common with many different people, just like you can find many differences with many different people. Given two random people, you could almost always argue for both cases (similar and dissimilar).
That's why I think statements like "You tend to end up with someone similar to your parents" are so meaningless. This means something different for everyone, and you can find many similarities between almost everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
