13 Jul 2012, 7:30 pm
i_Am_andaJoy wrote:
aSKperger wrote:
And add to your answer why do you mock someone who can't get laid?
Hey, if they can't take it online, they are certainly not going to handle it well in the bedroom.
So obviously, any mocking on my part would be out of the kindness of my heart.
Gotta thicken up the poor guy's... skin.
Benevolent discord, I call it. Criticism isn't the end of the world; it can be the beginning of a new one, though.
13 Jul 2012, 11:02 pm
13 Jul 2012, 11:06 pm
13 Jul 2012, 11:11 pm
13 Jul 2012, 11:24 pm
13 Jul 2012, 11:25 pm
aSKperger wrote:
Quote:
you could just send the OP a PM and ask if you are one of the offending members.
Yes, 70 000 members will PM him to ask if they are on the list. How handy
Not sure WP server could take itWho_Am_I - no problem I am very patient
And add to your answer why do you mock someone who can't get laid?
i don't think that many members think they could be the culprit.
13 Jul 2012, 11:26 pm
14 Jul 2012, 2:18 am
14 Jul 2012, 3:01 am
14 Jul 2012, 3:24 am
14 Jul 2012, 3:25 am
14 Jul 2012, 3:26 am
14 Jul 2012, 3:30 am
14 Jul 2012, 10:45 am
Who_Am_I wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
Agreed. Seems basic enough.
You didn't read the whole thread, did you?If you had, you would have seen on page 3 that I clarified that yes, it was a mistake.
So were you
- Too lazy to read the whole thread?
(...)
Who in their right mind would read all 6 pages of answers before answering a "simple logical reasoning test", I sure wouldn't.
I suggest you make a new thread without typos, this thread is lost.
14 Jul 2012, 1:09 pm
i_Am_andaJoy wrote:
aSKperger wrote:
And add to your answer why do you mock someone who can't get laid?
Hey, if they can't take it online, they are certainly not going to handle it well in the bedroom.
So obviously, any mocking on my part would be out of the kindness of my heart.
Gotta thicken up the poor guy's... skin.
Don't worry - it doesn't offend me at all. What does offend me is that most people here seem to misintepret what I'm saying. What I'm saying is not that all women look primarily for status and all men look primarily for looks, but I'm saying research has shown that generally, women look primarily for status and men look primarily for looks. Those are observed criteria for selecting a partner. It's a shame that academic research is dismissed in favour of romantic ideas that wouldn't be misplaced in a romantic comedy.
In order to make this discussion a bit more interesting, here's some of the research that I've based my point of view on. This one mainly goes to show that the women feeling offended when I tell them their stated preferences probably don't match their actual preferences have no reason at all to be offended. Just try to understand the situation. Life is not a romantic comedy, and your ideals will not change reality.
Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences wrote:
Discussion and Conclusions
Before a speed-dating event, we asked participants to indicate their own self-perceived level on a variety of traits and the preferred level of their ideal mate on those same traits. We compared these with the trait levels of the people they actually chose to make offers to while speed-dating. Our results show that although both men and women stated that they prefer mates who possess attributes similar to their own (likes-attract), their actual choices told a different story: Men’s choices did not reflect their stated preferences or their self-perceptions. Instead, men appeared to base their decisions mostly on the physical attractiveness of the women. They also appeared to be much less choosy, as reflected in the greater number of offers made by men compared with women (cf. ref. 22). One interpretation of these results is that men ‘‘propose’’ to nearly every woman above some certain attractiveness threshold, independent of their own desirability as a mate. This is in line with Grammer et al. (27) who found that men’s preferences for women’s physical attractiveness are best described as an avoidance of unattractiveness ( see also ref. 28 ).
Although women’s actual choices, like men’s, did not reflect their stated preferences, they made more discriminating choices: They appeared to be aware of the importance to men of their own physical attractiveness, and they used their self-perception to adjust their aspiration level and picked only a few men with traits that matched their own desirability as a mate. Thus, both men’s and women’s choices were influenced by women’s physical attractiveness. This pattern of results is in line with evolutionary models of human mating based on parental investment theory: Unlike men, women face a tradeoff between a mate’s quality, both phenotypic and genetic (for which physical attractiveness is used as a cue) and his willingness to provide paternal investment (2, 24, 29). As a consequence, it is more adaptive for women to take into account how likely potential mates are to be committed to them and hence aim for mates of similar quality, instead of simply aiming for the most attractive mates. A small number of good matches also helps women to reduce unnecessary mating effort and to lower the risks associated with further in-depth screening of potential mates; thus, the speed-dating process can have important advantages for women. In the context of speed-dating at least, self-reported mate preferences deviate markedly from actual mate choices. As with desires [e.g., for sexual variety (1 and 30)] and fantasies (31), stated preferences can be useful for understanding how evolution has biased the male and female mind in different directions, but they are a fallible base for discovering the process mechanisms of real choice behavior, as Buston and Emlen (6) aimed to do. Contrary to the concerns raised by Buston and Emlen (and subsequently ref. 32), the mate choice patterns of men and women, as we have found by analyzing speed-dating, are very much in line with the theories of Darwin (23) and Trivers (24). Furthermore, these patterns imply that the well documented phenomenon of human positive assortative mating (e.g., refs. 33 and 34), at least when it arises through active mate choice rather than social homogamy, is almost exclusively a result of the picky female choices, not the rather undiscriminating male ones. In this way, humans put themselves in line with most other mammals in following Darwin’s (23) principle of choosy females and competitive males, even if humans say something different.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/38/1501 ... 1d6ed20b0e
Before a speed-dating event, we asked participants to indicate their own self-perceived level on a variety of traits and the preferred level of their ideal mate on those same traits. We compared these with the trait levels of the people they actually chose to make offers to while speed-dating. Our results show that although both men and women stated that they prefer mates who possess attributes similar to their own (likes-attract), their actual choices told a different story: Men’s choices did not reflect their stated preferences or their self-perceptions. Instead, men appeared to base their decisions mostly on the physical attractiveness of the women. They also appeared to be much less choosy, as reflected in the greater number of offers made by men compared with women (cf. ref. 22). One interpretation of these results is that men ‘‘propose’’ to nearly every woman above some certain attractiveness threshold, independent of their own desirability as a mate. This is in line with Grammer et al. (27) who found that men’s preferences for women’s physical attractiveness are best described as an avoidance of unattractiveness ( see also ref. 28 ).
Although women’s actual choices, like men’s, did not reflect their stated preferences, they made more discriminating choices: They appeared to be aware of the importance to men of their own physical attractiveness, and they used their self-perception to adjust their aspiration level and picked only a few men with traits that matched their own desirability as a mate. Thus, both men’s and women’s choices were influenced by women’s physical attractiveness. This pattern of results is in line with evolutionary models of human mating based on parental investment theory: Unlike men, women face a tradeoff between a mate’s quality, both phenotypic and genetic (for which physical attractiveness is used as a cue) and his willingness to provide paternal investment (2, 24, 29). As a consequence, it is more adaptive for women to take into account how likely potential mates are to be committed to them and hence aim for mates of similar quality, instead of simply aiming for the most attractive mates. A small number of good matches also helps women to reduce unnecessary mating effort and to lower the risks associated with further in-depth screening of potential mates; thus, the speed-dating process can have important advantages for women. In the context of speed-dating at least, self-reported mate preferences deviate markedly from actual mate choices. As with desires [e.g., for sexual variety (1 and 30)] and fantasies (31), stated preferences can be useful for understanding how evolution has biased the male and female mind in different directions, but they are a fallible base for discovering the process mechanisms of real choice behavior, as Buston and Emlen (6) aimed to do. Contrary to the concerns raised by Buston and Emlen (and subsequently ref. 32), the mate choice patterns of men and women, as we have found by analyzing speed-dating, are very much in line with the theories of Darwin (23) and Trivers (24). Furthermore, these patterns imply that the well documented phenomenon of human positive assortative mating (e.g., refs. 33 and 34), at least when it arises through active mate choice rather than social homogamy, is almost exclusively a result of the picky female choices, not the rather undiscriminating male ones. In this way, humans put themselves in line with most other mammals in following Darwin’s (23) principle of choosy females and competitive males, even if humans say something different.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/38/1501 ... 1d6ed20b0e
14 Jul 2012, 1:47 pm
