|
|
On October 18 2012 15:20 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:15 Voltaire wrote:
I'll be voting for Gary Johnson (libertarian party) this November. He's actually wants to end the war in Afghanistan, the war on drugs, and to stop using the US military as a global police force.
The higher percentage he gets, the more media attention third party candidates will get next election. Eventually the libertarian party will be allowed into the debates if this happens. Perhaps I'll vote for Jill Stein. California's going to Obama either way.
I think Jill Stein has a really irrealistic approach to things. She's also has no political experience whatsoever, while Gary Johnson on the other hand was a highly successful governor for 8 years.
|
On October 18 2012 15:10 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:02 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:56 CountChocula wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:37 frogrubdown wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:24 Souma wrote:
There's obviously a balance issue here. You'll be hard-pressed to find a great girlfriend if you're too nice. Likewise, it'll be pretty damn hard to find a nice, smart girl if you're just a giant douche. I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. Any article that turns small statistical changes in choice into "women do x" isn't a very good source of scientific information. Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics. On October 18 2012 14:43 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:24 Souma wrote:
There's obviously a balance issue here. You'll be hard-pressed to find a great girlfriend if you're too nice. Likewise, it'll be pretty damn hard to find a nice, smart girl if you're just a giant douche. I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. This isn't wrong just overly simplistic It's a useful generalization. It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? What people consider to be beautiful is largely influenced by culture. People from Japan have a different aesthetic of beauty from you, so your statement "men prefer women who are pretty" is extremely vague and overly simplistic when "pretty" isn't well-defined. Also to say "men prefer women who are pretty" means that you're ignoring any sort of balance between beauty, personality and intelligence. There are certain aspects of physical attractiveness that have been demonstrated to be nearly universally attractive across cultures. Can you cite me something for such a claim? edit: Nvm, you don't have to bother. I was probably being overly nit-picky here. I'd probably argue one can say there is a well-defined concept of beauty within each culture and that's what the "pretty" you're talking about means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Female_physical_attractiveness
On October 18 2012 15:10 CountChocula wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:02 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:56 CountChocula wrote:
If you prefer a woman who's pretty but who is a complete idiot and who you can't converse with at all, then I'd say you have an overly simplistic view on this. Preferring beauty does not mean ignoring other factors. Person A: I like apples. Person B: Do you like rotten apples? Person A: No. Person B: Haha, you have an overly simplistic view on apples! *facepalm* Then you should qualify your statement to say "men prefer women who are pretty, but other factors (personality and intelligence) come into play too." Not to mention if the reason for your preference for [insert random quality of woman] is as arbitrary as your analogy to your preference of fruits suggests, this can be questioned as well because to quote Socrates: "The unexamined life is not worth living." I imagine you'll say something about how evolution influences our behaviour and taste in women so it's not arbitrary at all, but such a response is not a valid answer because of the naturalistic fallacy. It would be satisfactory for a non-human animal who can only operate by instinct, but it's not for rational beings.
You're either willfully misinterpreting a sentence that is easily commonly understood, or you don't understand what a generalization is.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 18 2012 15:25 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:20 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 15:15 Voltaire wrote:
I'll be voting for Gary Johnson (libertarian party) this November. He's actually wants to end the war in Afghanistan, the war on drugs, and to stop using the US military as a global police force.
The higher percentage he gets, the more media attention third party candidates will get next election. Eventually the libertarian party will be allowed into the debates if this happens. Perhaps I'll vote for Jill Stein. California's going to Obama either way. I think Jill Stein has a really irrealistic approach to things. She's also has no political experience whatsoever, while Gary Johnson on the other hand was a highly successful governor for 8 years.
The important thing is that I believe in a lot of the same stuff she believes in. The only part that I largely disagree with her on are matters of foreign policy. I don't expect her to win though so it's okay. :p
Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are on the opposite ends of the spectrum, so you can say that I don't believe the libertarian philosophy holds much water in the face of reality either. :p
|
Canada2068 Posts
On October 18 2012 15:29 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:10 CountChocula wrote:On October 18 2012 15:02 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:56 CountChocula wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:37 frogrubdown wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:24 Souma wrote:
There's obviously a balance issue here. You'll be hard-pressed to find a great girlfriend if you're too nice. Likewise, it'll be pretty damn hard to find a nice, smart girl if you're just a giant douche. I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. Any article that turns small statistical changes in choice into "women do x" isn't a very good source of scientific information. Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics. On October 18 2012 14:43 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:24 Souma wrote:
There's obviously a balance issue here. You'll be hard-pressed to find a great girlfriend if you're too nice. Likewise, it'll be pretty damn hard to find a nice, smart girl if you're just a giant douche. I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. This isn't wrong just overly simplistic It's a useful generalization. It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? What people consider to be beautiful is largely influenced by culture. People from Japan have a different aesthetic of beauty from you, so your statement "men prefer women who are pretty" is extremely vague and overly simplistic when "pretty" isn't well-defined. Also to say "men prefer women who are pretty" means that you're ignoring any sort of balance between beauty, personality and intelligence. There are certain aspects of physical attractiveness that have been demonstrated to be nearly universally attractive across cultures. Can you cite me something for such a claim? edit: Nvm, you don't have to bother. I was probably being overly nit-picky here. I'd probably argue one can say there is a well-defined concept of beauty within each culture and that's what the "pretty" you're talking about means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Female_physical_attractivenessShow nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:10 CountChocula wrote:On October 18 2012 15:02 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:56 CountChocula wrote:
If you prefer a woman who's pretty but who is a complete idiot and who you can't converse with at all, then I'd say you have an overly simplistic view on this. Preferring beauty does not mean ignoring other factors. Person A: I like apples. Person B: Do you like rotten apples? Person A: No. Person B: Haha, you have an overly simplistic view on apples! *facepalm* Then you should qualify your statement to say "men prefer women who are pretty, but other factors (personality and intelligence) come into play too." Not to mention if the reason for your preference for [insert random quality of woman] is as arbitrary as your analogy to your preference of fruits suggests, this can be questioned as well because to quote Socrates: "The unexamined life is not worth living." I imagine you'll say something about how evolution influences our behaviour and taste in women so it's not arbitrary at all, but such a response is not a valid answer because of the naturalistic fallacy. It would be satisfactory for a non-human animal who can only operate by instinct, but it's not for rational beings. You're either willfully misinterpreting a sentence that is easily commonly understood, or you don't understand what a generalization is.
Fair enough. I misread your comment about it being a generalization and it happens to be a pet peeve of mine that guys seem to prefer pretty women without really thinking about why.
My point (if you'd still like to think about it further) is that it's not so ironclad, 100% correct/rational a preference as most people seem to think it to be.
|
On October 18 2012 07:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 06:55 armada[sb] wrote:On October 18 2012 06:52 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:28 farvacola wrote:On October 18 2012 06:21 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2012 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:08 CajunMan wrote:On October 18 2012 04:54 Snaap wrote: Hey guys I was wondering about something. First of all I'm not from the US, nor do I have a great understanding of US politics, so dont hate if I get something wrong. When reading/watching stuff about the election, often time it is stated how terrible the last 4 years have been and how this is the reason for not voting for obama. Now in my opinion considering the very tough spot the US were in when Obama took over he did a very good job, but for some reason people expect him to turn the whole crises and deficits over over night. Everytime I read his statements they're usually realistic and make sense to me, What is the reason for saying that obama failed in his term? Am I missing something here? Again, Im not a pro on US politics so no flame pls  It is because everything he is currently promising is what he promised in 2008. He had 2 years to do anything he wanted and didn't do 99% of it. That is a very large part of it a lot of people feel betrayed they put their trust in him. After 4 years his biggest accomplishments are a stimulus plan that is largely a waste of money and a healthcare program that raised premiums and put us further in debt. (I am against universal healthcare 100% personally but I don't even know how you can suggest such a plan that will cost so much with both a debt and a deficit as large as ours it is fiscally irresponsible above all else) Exactly right. This is why it is somewhat meaningless to score the debates in a vacuum (like I have been doing) and pronounce winners and losers. Voters aren't measuring Obama at the debates with just his performance at any given debate in mind. They are weighing his debate performance in context with his record of the past four years and the rhetoric on which he ran 4 years ago. Viewed in this larger scope, it becomes very apparent why Obama is in such a hard spot. He has fallen very, very far from where he was in 2008. Yeah ... that's interesting. I've really enjoyed the US election this year as an outsider. It's easy for me to analyse the election as sport -- who is playing better, or what the next play should be. But it's impossible for me to have a good sense on the pulse or actual perception of average voters, or America at-large. I wonder if any pundit, high-information voter or keyboard warrior actually does. Anyone who wears their party affiliation on their sleeve whilst offering forth "accurate" depictions of moderate/independent voting tendencies is drinking too much kool-aid, be it of the red or blue variety. So you think that people are ignoring Obama's four year track record and what he promised during the 2008 campaign? You may want to reconsider who's drinking the kool-aid. Are you aware that the executive branch merely enforces policy created by the legislative branch? Do you realize that republicans stonewalled anything that had a whiff of Obama involvement? This has been discussed to death already. Here's the bottom line. Obama's record is bad. This isn't debatable.
No, that is absolutely debatable. I consider Obama's record to be very good, and if he doesn't get re-elected and once the Republican fallacious talking points about his presidency start fading away, I'm positive he will go down in history as a good president.
|
On October 18 2012 15:10 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 14:43 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:36 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:24 Souma wrote:
There's obviously a balance issue here. You'll be hard-pressed to find a great girlfriend if you're too nice. Likewise, it'll be pretty damn hard to find a nice, smart girl if you're just a giant douche. I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. We may be disagreeing on what constitutes a nice, smart girlfriend though. The point I'm making is that science overwhelmingly indicates men with Dark Triad traits are nearly universally attractive to women, the same way that science indicates that women with youthful appearances, symmetrical faces, full breasts, full lips, and a low waist-hip ratio are nearly universally attractive to men. On October 18 2012 14:36 Souma wrote:
Little did you know I can't possibly lose this argument, because in my eyes a nice, smart woman would never go for a giant douche.
Game and set! Well, I can't argue with logic like that!  There's two tangents here -- the science of attraction, and the science of relationships. "Misogyny" as xDaunt puts it, or an "alpha" presence, is great for attention and finding dates, obviously. For having an actual relationship that goes somewhere, the only thing that matters is, not to sound corny, laughter and conversation.
We were talking about attraction, not long-term relationships.
That said, an attractive man can easily have a long-term relationship, if he is so inclined (though whether he would want one is a different story). It's a lot easier to start a relationship with a woman you're already banging. By contrast, an unattractive man is going to have a tough time getting into a relationship in the first place, unless it's with an unattractive woman.
On top of that, you have to consider that simply because a man has a beautiful wife doesn't mean that she loves him; she might just love having him as a provider while she cheats on him.
On October 18 2012 15:10 Leporello wrote:
Plenty of men have smart, beautiful wives and girlfriends not because they're domineering, but because the women simply like being around them and circumstance brought them together. Those are also the relationships that don't end up being a failure or an endurance contest.
Women like being around attractive men. What makes a man attractive encompasses a variety of things, including being funny and social, but the point I'm making is that it does not include being a "nice guy".
On October 18 2012 15:12 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:05 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:37 frogrubdown wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:24 Souma wrote:
There's obviously a balance issue here. You'll be hard-pressed to find a great girlfriend if you're too nice. Likewise, it'll be pretty damn hard to find a nice, smart girl if you're just a giant douche. I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. Any article that turns small statistical changes in choice into "women do x" isn't a very good source of scientific information. Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics. On October 18 2012 14:43 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:24 Souma wrote:
There's obviously a balance issue here. You'll be hard-pressed to find a great girlfriend if you're too nice. Likewise, it'll be pretty damn hard to find a nice, smart girl if you're just a giant douche. I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. This isn't wrong just overly simplistic It's a useful generalization. It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity. I don't disagree with any of this. On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:
In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons. As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter. I get what you're saying, and on a very general, shallow level I'm inclined to agree. People just need to remember that this is purely attractiveness and it is not advocating a measure to find a steady relationship. It's more or less just something to get you laid.
Yeah, attractiveness is not the end-all-be-all when it comes to long-term relationships. However, getting laid is often a key first step to having a long-term relationship.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 18 2012 15:36 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 07:00 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:55 armada[sb] wrote:On October 18 2012 06:52 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:28 farvacola wrote:On October 18 2012 06:21 Defacer wrote:On October 18 2012 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On October 18 2012 06:08 CajunMan wrote:On October 18 2012 04:54 Snaap wrote: Hey guys I was wondering about something. First of all I'm not from the US, nor do I have a great understanding of US politics, so dont hate if I get something wrong. When reading/watching stuff about the election, often time it is stated how terrible the last 4 years have been and how this is the reason for not voting for obama. Now in my opinion considering the very tough spot the US were in when Obama took over he did a very good job, but for some reason people expect him to turn the whole crises and deficits over over night. Everytime I read his statements they're usually realistic and make sense to me, What is the reason for saying that obama failed in his term? Am I missing something here? Again, Im not a pro on US politics so no flame pls It is because everything he is currently promising is what he promised in 2008. He had 2 years to do anything he wanted and didn't do 99% of it. That is a very large part of it a lot of people feel betrayed they put their trust in him. After 4 years his biggest accomplishments are a stimulus plan that is largely a waste of money and a healthcare program that raised premiums and put us further in debt. (I am against universal healthcare 100% personally but I don't even know how you can suggest such a plan that will cost so much with both a debt and a deficit as large as ours it is fiscally irresponsible above all else) Exactly right. This is why it is somewhat meaningless to score the debates in a vacuum (like I have been doing) and pronounce winners and losers. Voters aren't measuring Obama at the debates with just his performance at any given debate in mind. They are weighing his debate performance in context with his record of the past four years and the rhetoric on which he ran 4 years ago. Viewed in this larger scope, it becomes very apparent why Obama is in such a hard spot. He has fallen very, very far from where he was in 2008. Yeah ... that's interesting. I've really enjoyed the US election this year as an outsider. It's easy for me to analyse the election as sport -- who is playing better, or what the next play should be. But it's impossible for me to have a good sense on the pulse or actual perception of average voters, or America at-large. I wonder if any pundit, high-information voter or keyboard warrior actually does. Anyone who wears their party affiliation on their sleeve whilst offering forth "accurate" depictions of moderate/independent voting tendencies is drinking too much kool-aid, be it of the red or blue variety. So you think that people are ignoring Obama's four year track record and what he promised during the 2008 campaign? You may want to reconsider who's drinking the kool-aid. Are you aware that the executive branch merely enforces policy created by the legislative branch? Do you realize that republicans stonewalled anything that had a whiff of Obama involvement? This has been discussed to death already. Here's the bottom line. Obama's record is bad. This isn't debatable. No, that is absolutely debatable. I consider Obama's record to be very good, and if he doesn't get re-elected and once the Republican fallacious talking points about his presidency start fading away, I'm positive he will go down in history as a good president.
Historians have a liberal bias though! (actually, do they? I have no idea)
|
On October 18 2012 15:12 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:05 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:37 frogrubdown wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:24 Souma wrote:
There's obviously a balance issue here. You'll be hard-pressed to find a great girlfriend if you're too nice. Likewise, it'll be pretty damn hard to find a nice, smart girl if you're just a giant douche. I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. Any article that turns small statistical changes in choice into "women do x" isn't a very good source of scientific information. Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics. On October 18 2012 14:43 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:24 Souma wrote:
There's obviously a balance issue here. You'll be hard-pressed to find a great girlfriend if you're too nice. Likewise, it'll be pretty damn hard to find a nice, smart girl if you're just a giant douche. I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. This isn't wrong just overly simplistic It's a useful generalization. It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity. I don't disagree with any of this. On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:
In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons. As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter. I think it's much easier to express juvenile impulsive assholish masculinity than it is to express evolved inclusive masculinity. What makes it more difficult is that along the way, feminism has managed to play a cruel trick and convince many men that "evolved" behavior involves renouncing masculine tendencies. So I'd simply argue that any empiricism you present is inherently biased toward the latter since our current constructs of nice guy are flawed with respect to attracting females.
I agree that part of masculinity is displaying leadership ability, which is part of what I think you mean by "inclusive masculinity". In other words, alpha males look out for their group, are trustworthy, communicate, etc.
However, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women are not attracted to men who display shyness, weakness, insecurity, obsession, hesitance, neediness, desperation, or obsequiousness. And that fact is the point I'm trying to make.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 18 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:12 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 15:05 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:37 frogrubdown wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:24 Souma wrote:
There's obviously a balance issue here. You'll be hard-pressed to find a great girlfriend if you're too nice. Likewise, it'll be pretty damn hard to find a nice, smart girl if you're just a giant douche. I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. Any article that turns small statistical changes in choice into "women do x" isn't a very good source of scientific information. Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics. On October 18 2012 14:43 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:24 Souma wrote:
There's obviously a balance issue here. You'll be hard-pressed to find a great girlfriend if you're too nice. Likewise, it'll be pretty damn hard to find a nice, smart girl if you're just a giant douche. I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. This isn't wrong just overly simplistic It's a useful generalization. It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity. I don't disagree with any of this. On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:
In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons. As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter. I think it's much easier to express juvenile impulsive assholish masculinity than it is to express evolved inclusive masculinity. What makes it more difficult is that along the way, feminism has managed to play a cruel trick and convince many men that "evolved" behavior involves renouncing masculine tendencies. So I'd simply argue that any empiricism you present is inherently biased toward the latter since our current constructs of nice guy are flawed with respect to attracting females. I agree that part of masculinity is displaying leadership ability, which is part of what I think you mean by "inclusive masculinity". In other words, alpha males look out for their group, are trustworthy, communicate, etc. However, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women are not attracted to men who display shyness, weakness, insecurity, obsession, hesitance, neediness, desperation, or obsequiousness. And that fact is the point I'm trying to make.
^ Is that how you view the typical 'nice guy'? o_O
|
On October 18 2012 15:43 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:12 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 15:05 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:37 frogrubdown wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:24 Souma wrote:
There's obviously a balance issue here. You'll be hard-pressed to find a great girlfriend if you're too nice. Likewise, it'll be pretty damn hard to find a nice, smart girl if you're just a giant douche. I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. Any article that turns small statistical changes in choice into "women do x" isn't a very good source of scientific information. Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics. On October 18 2012 14:43 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:24 Souma wrote:
There's obviously a balance issue here. You'll be hard-pressed to find a great girlfriend if you're too nice. Likewise, it'll be pretty damn hard to find a nice, smart girl if you're just a giant douche. I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. This isn't wrong just overly simplistic It's a useful generalization. It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity. I don't disagree with any of this. On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:
In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons. As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter. I think it's much easier to express juvenile impulsive assholish masculinity than it is to express evolved inclusive masculinity. What makes it more difficult is that along the way, feminism has managed to play a cruel trick and convince many men that "evolved" behavior involves renouncing masculine tendencies. So I'd simply argue that any empiricism you present is inherently biased toward the latter since our current constructs of nice guy are flawed with respect to attracting females. I agree that part of masculinity is displaying leadership ability, which is part of what I think you mean by "inclusive masculinity". In other words, alpha males look out for their group, are trustworthy, communicate, etc. However, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women are not attracted to men who display shyness, weakness, insecurity, obsession, hesitance, neediness, desperation, or obsequiousness. And that fact is the point I'm trying to make. ^ Is that how you view the typical 'nice guy'? o_O
Yes. Keep in mind, though, that the operative word is "display". This is how "nice guys" present themselves to women, not necessarily how they actually are.
|
I think this thread has gone a little OT in response to the discussions about the dating between men and women.
|
On October 18 2012 15:46 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:43 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:12 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 15:05 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:37 frogrubdown wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:24 Souma wrote:
There's obviously a balance issue here. You'll be hard-pressed to find a great girlfriend if you're too nice. Likewise, it'll be pretty damn hard to find a nice, smart girl if you're just a giant douche. I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. Any article that turns small statistical changes in choice into "women do x" isn't a very good source of scientific information. Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics. On October 18 2012 14:43 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:24 Souma wrote:
There's obviously a balance issue here. You'll be hard-pressed to find a great girlfriend if you're too nice. Likewise, it'll be pretty damn hard to find a nice, smart girl if you're just a giant douche. I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. This isn't wrong just overly simplistic It's a useful generalization. It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity. I don't disagree with any of this. On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:
In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons. As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter. I think it's much easier to express juvenile impulsive assholish masculinity than it is to express evolved inclusive masculinity. What makes it more difficult is that along the way, feminism has managed to play a cruel trick and convince many men that "evolved" behavior involves renouncing masculine tendencies. So I'd simply argue that any empiricism you present is inherently biased toward the latter since our current constructs of nice guy are flawed with respect to attracting females. I agree that part of masculinity is displaying leadership ability, which is part of what I think you mean by "inclusive masculinity". In other words, alpha males look out for their group, are trustworthy, communicate, etc. However, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women are not attracted to men who display shyness, weakness, insecurity, obsession, hesitance, neediness, desperation, or obsequiousness. And that fact is the point I'm trying to make. ^ Is that how you view the typical 'nice guy'? o_O Yes. Keep in mind, though, that the operative word is "display". This is how "nice guys" present themselves to women.
Wow..so what would be your adjectives for douche bag?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 18 2012 15:46 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:43 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:12 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 15:05 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:37 frogrubdown wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:24 Souma wrote:
There's obviously a balance issue here. You'll be hard-pressed to find a great girlfriend if you're too nice. Likewise, it'll be pretty damn hard to find a nice, smart girl if you're just a giant douche. I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. Any article that turns small statistical changes in choice into "women do x" isn't a very good source of scientific information. Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics. On October 18 2012 14:43 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:24 Souma wrote:
There's obviously a balance issue here. You'll be hard-pressed to find a great girlfriend if you're too nice. Likewise, it'll be pretty damn hard to find a nice, smart girl if you're just a giant douche. I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. This isn't wrong just overly simplistic It's a useful generalization. It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity. I don't disagree with any of this. On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:
In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons. As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter. I think it's much easier to express juvenile impulsive assholish masculinity than it is to express evolved inclusive masculinity. What makes it more difficult is that along the way, feminism has managed to play a cruel trick and convince many men that "evolved" behavior involves renouncing masculine tendencies. So I'd simply argue that any empiricism you present is inherently biased toward the latter since our current constructs of nice guy are flawed with respect to attracting females. I agree that part of masculinity is displaying leadership ability, which is part of what I think you mean by "inclusive masculinity". In other words, alpha males look out for their group, are trustworthy, communicate, etc. However, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women are not attracted to men who display shyness, weakness, insecurity, obsession, hesitance, neediness, desperation, or obsequiousness. And that fact is the point I'm trying to make. ^ Is that how you view the typical 'nice guy'? o_O Yes. Keep in mind, though, that the operative word is "display". This is how "nice guys" present themselves to women, not necessarily how they actually are.
I believe we have two entirely different outlooks on what constitutes a 'nice guy.' My idea of a 'nice guy' is a guy who is friendly, generous, considerate, kind, aka not a douche. He isn't necessarily shy, weak, insecure, obsessed, hesitant, needy, desperate, or obsequious.
|
On October 18 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 13:51 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 18 2012 13:09 sam!zdat wrote:On October 18 2012 13:07 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
sorry if this is been done but there's so many pages in this thread!!! I know you mean well but don't do this again. welcome to teamliquid what? make polls? yeah you make your ninth post on TL a useless poll on page eight hundred whatever, takes up a lot of space I gotta scroll past and man is my middle finger sore. anyway polls are kinda frowned upon here so don't make them as a good rule of thumb
polls are frowned on in this thread or the whole board? why even have them then?
anyway I think it is an interesting view into the thoughts of the people in this thread but maybe I could make a separate thread for it? it's certainly more accurate than some polls I've been seeing in the news!
for those who didn't see it. predict the winner in november: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=879
|
|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 18 2012 15:53 nevermindthebollocks wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:On October 18 2012 13:51 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 18 2012 13:09 sam!zdat wrote:On October 18 2012 13:07 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
sorry if this is been done but there's so many pages in this thread!!! I know you mean well but don't do this again. welcome to teamliquid what? make polls? yeah you make your ninth post on TL a useless poll on page eight hundred whatever, takes up a lot of space I gotta scroll past and man is my middle finger sore. anyway polls are kinda frowned upon here so don't make them as a good rule of thumb polls are frowned on in this thread or the whole board? why even have them then? anyway I think it is an interesting view into the thoughts of the people in this thread but maybe I could make a separate thread for it? it's certainly more accurate than some polls I've been seeing in the news! for those who didn't see it. predict the winner in november: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=879
There's a poll on the first page in the OP.
|
On October 18 2012 15:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:46 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:12 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 15:05 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:37 frogrubdown wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:[quote] I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. Any article that turns small statistical changes in choice into "women do x" isn't a very good source of scientific information. Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics. On October 18 2012 14:43 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:[quote] I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. This isn't wrong just overly simplistic It's a useful generalization. It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity. I don't disagree with any of this. On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:
In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons. As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter. I think it's much easier to express juvenile impulsive assholish masculinity than it is to express evolved inclusive masculinity. What makes it more difficult is that along the way, feminism has managed to play a cruel trick and convince many men that "evolved" behavior involves renouncing masculine tendencies. So I'd simply argue that any empiricism you present is inherently biased toward the latter since our current constructs of nice guy are flawed with respect to attracting females. I agree that part of masculinity is displaying leadership ability, which is part of what I think you mean by "inclusive masculinity". In other words, alpha males look out for their group, are trustworthy, communicate, etc. However, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women are not attracted to men who display shyness, weakness, insecurity, obsession, hesitance, neediness, desperation, or obsequiousness. And that fact is the point I'm trying to make. ^ Is that how you view the typical 'nice guy'? o_O Yes. Keep in mind, though, that the operative word is "display". This is how "nice guys" present themselves to women, not necessarily how they actually are. I believe we have two entirely different outlooks on what constitutes a 'nice guy.' My idea of a 'nice guy' is a guy who is friendly, generous, considerate, kind, aka not a douche. He isn't necessarily shy, weak, insecure, obsessed, hesitant, needy, desperate, or obsequious.
My point is that a friendly, generous, considerate, and kind man will come off in certain negative ways to women. I think we all know nice guys who hot girls just aren't attracted to, despite the fact that said guys are genuinely good people.
On October 18 2012 15:49 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:46 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:12 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 15:05 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:37 frogrubdown wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:[quote] I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. Any article that turns small statistical changes in choice into "women do x" isn't a very good source of scientific information. Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics. On October 18 2012 14:43 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:34 sunprince wrote:[quote] I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur. Take a look at this article if you want to understand the science behind why this is the case. This isn't wrong just overly simplistic It's a useful generalization. It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity. I don't disagree with any of this. On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:
In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons. As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter. I think it's much easier to express juvenile impulsive assholish masculinity than it is to express evolved inclusive masculinity. What makes it more difficult is that along the way, feminism has managed to play a cruel trick and convince many men that "evolved" behavior involves renouncing masculine tendencies. So I'd simply argue that any empiricism you present is inherently biased toward the latter since our current constructs of nice guy are flawed with respect to attracting females. I agree that part of masculinity is displaying leadership ability, which is part of what I think you mean by "inclusive masculinity". In other words, alpha males look out for their group, are trustworthy, communicate, etc. However, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women are not attracted to men who display shyness, weakness, insecurity, obsession, hesitance, neediness, desperation, or obsequiousness. And that fact is the point I'm trying to make. ^ Is that how you view the typical 'nice guy'? o_O Yes. Keep in mind, though, that the operative word is "display". This is how "nice guys" present themselves to women. Wow..so what would be your adjectives for douche bag?
"Jerks" present themselves to women in the opposite way; they display confidence, strength, security, aloofness, initiative, lack of caring, indifference, and assertiveness.
|
On October 18 2012 15:55 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:53 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 18 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:On October 18 2012 13:51 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 18 2012 13:09 sam!zdat wrote:On October 18 2012 13:07 nevermindthebollocks wrote:
sorry if this is been done but there's so many pages in this thread!!! I know you mean well but don't do this again. welcome to teamliquid what? make polls? yeah you make your ninth post on TL a useless poll on page eight hundred whatever, takes up a lot of space I gotta scroll past and man is my middle finger sore. anyway polls are kinda frowned upon here so don't make them as a good rule of thumb polls are frowned on in this thread or the whole board? why even have them then? anyway I think it is an interesting view into the thoughts of the people in this thread but maybe I could make a separate thread for it? it's certainly more accurate than some polls I've been seeing in the news! for those who didn't see it. predict the winner in november: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=879 There's a poll on the first page in the OP.
i made a mistake in my post which I will edit but I meant to mention since the original. that was months ago and so much has changed
|
On October 18 2012 15:56 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:49 kmillz wrote:On October 18 2012 15:46 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 Souma wrote:On October 18 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 15:12 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 15:05 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote:On October 18 2012 14:37 frogrubdown wrote:
[quote]
Any article that turns small statistical changes in choice into "women do x" isn't a very good source of scientific information. Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics. On October 18 2012 14:43 sevencck wrote:
[quote]
This isn't wrong just overly simplistic It's a useful generalization. It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that? I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity. I don't disagree with any of this. On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:
In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons. As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter. I think it's much easier to express juvenile impulsive assholish masculinity than it is to express evolved inclusive masculinity. What makes it more difficult is that along the way, feminism has managed to play a cruel trick and convince many men that "evolved" behavior involves renouncing masculine tendencies. So I'd simply argue that any empiricism you present is inherently biased toward the latter since our current constructs of nice guy are flawed with respect to attracting females. I agree that part of masculinity is displaying leadership ability, which is part of what I think you mean by "inclusive masculinity". In other words, alpha males look out for their group, are trustworthy, communicate, etc. However, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women are not attracted to men who display shyness, weakness, insecurity, obsession, hesitance, neediness, desperation, or obsequiousness. And that fact is the point I'm trying to make. ^ Is that how you view the typical 'nice guy'? o_O Yes. Keep in mind, though, that the operative word is "display". This is how "nice guys" present themselves to women. Wow..so what would be your adjectives for douche bag? "Jerks" present themselves to women in the opposite way; they display confidence, strength, security, aloofness, initiative, lack of caring, indifference, and assertiveness.
I can agree with lack of caring, aloofness and indifference. None of the others though, that's absurd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6804
483
237
403
EPT
