| Would you date a guy because he has a fancy car? |
| I'll do |
|
1% |
[ 1 ] |
| indifferent |
|
44% |
[ 25 ] |
| I am not female/or gay. |
|
53% |
[ 30 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 56 |
|
sunshower
Ethereality
Joined: Aug 18, 2006
Age: 113
Posts: 4333
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Wolfheart wrote: | | sunshower wrote: | I've always been pretty indifferent to cars, although it's useful if someone has a car and can drive it as I think that's an achievement in itself (one I hope to one day achieve). As far as types of cars go, I like practicality over unnecessary showiness, that's the type of car I'd buy - a practical car that was good value for money. There's not much point in buying a car for what it looks like because 99% of cars look ugly irrespective and the 1% that actually are more visually pleasing than the rest are way too expensive to be affordable by the normal population.
As far as buying a car because of what brand it is, it's the same as buying a clothing item because of a brand label on it when you can buy a clothing item identical in appearance without the brand label for a fraction of the price. You're basically paying for an arbitrary social symbol, which in my opinion is the equivalent of flushing several grand (well a lot more than that really) down the toilet. |
Exactly, as long as the car can go from one point to the next, that's the main purpose, however you must be able to appreciate mechanical aptitude and why different designs might appeal to different people, it is a matter of perspective. I think someone with mechanical aptitude can be impressive if they have an understanding and dedication towards learning about a specific car or means of transport.
If someone devotes hours to designing and building a car, is it as impressive to me as someone who spends hours designing a piece of art or architecture? Is it as impressive as someone that has a dedication towards a particular sport or in your case, a musical instrument? Of course not, however to someone with good mechanical aptitude and understanding, it might be. |
You make a good point actually, I would definitely agree about how designing and building would be equivalent to some other art form. I think I refer more to somebody who has no knowledge or interest in that side of things but has bought the car due to it's make/name alone.
_________________
Into the dark...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
MissConstrue
~Meow Clawdius~
Joined: Feb 05, 2008
Age: 31
Posts: 19686
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| myth wrote: | | Women aren't completely dependent on men nor are men completely dependent on women. However both tend choose mates that show in various ways that they will be a good parent and ensure the survival of their offspring. It's been studied at length and is clearly apparent in the animal kingom. Not sure why this is even a debate. |
Then how do you explain women who are in abusive relationships or women who couple with men who cannot financially provide? How do you explain the high populations among those in poverty? It takes 2 to tangle. These statistics aren't very reliable of the overall human population who don't fit into this neat little study.
_________________
Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
-Thomas Paine
|
|
| Back to top |
|
myth
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 17, 2011
Age: 27
Posts: 707
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Did you read the word "tend" in that sentance? Trends =/= absolute truth.
Human society, in many ways, has come up with ways to quote unquote "overcome" natural selection. Most people (rich & poor, ugly & attractive, smart & stupid) are able to find a mate somewhere and breed if they so choose. Humans no longer live by the "survival of the fittest" rule. But the base instincts are still there on some level.
_________________
Non-NT something. Married to a diagnosed aspie.
Nothing is absolute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MXH
TomCat
Joined: Jul 29, 2010
Age: 22
Posts: 12478
Location: Here i stand and face the rain
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kjas wrote: |
Most people around here like to drag though. Doesn't make sense as there are some awesome mountain rounds which are perfect for drifting. |
such a shame puertoricans have all the drag racing rotary records 
but i agree on the good roads part. It makes sense for competitive drifting to have started in japan not because of their culture, since rally drivers had been going sideways for decades, but because the conditions and cars allowed it to be done by many. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MissConstrue
~Meow Clawdius~
Joined: Feb 05, 2008
Age: 31
Posts: 19686
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| myth wrote: | Did you read the word "tend" in that sentance? Trends =/= absolute truth.
Human society, in many ways, has come up with ways to quote unquote "overcome" natural selection. Most people (rich & poor, ugly & attractive, smart & stupid) are able to find a mate somewhere and breed if they so choose. Humans no longer live by the "survival of the fittest" rule. But the base instincts are still there on some level. |
No longer live by survival of the fittest rule? Please explain because you make it sound as if human society not nature is responsible for overcoming "rules of attraction". I don't deny that there is some truth to what you stated but this rule is certainly subjective when it comes to attraction in a partner vs societal expectations due to standards of living.
_________________
Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
-Thomas Paine
|
|
| Back to top |
|
myth
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 17, 2011
Age: 27
Posts: 707
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't understand your question. We no longer live by the survival of the fittest because society has been structured so that even "weaker" or "defective" humans can survive as opposed to the "wild" where less desirable (desirable = more likely to produce healthy offspring who live and go on to reproduce on their own) traits would eventually phase out due to them not producing as many offspring.
What do you mean by "nature" ?
Also, how do you define "attraction" ?
_________________
Non-NT something. Married to a diagnosed aspie.
Nothing is absolute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MissConstrue
~Meow Clawdius~
Joined: Feb 05, 2008
Age: 31
Posts: 19686
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| myth wrote: | I don't understand your question. We no longer live by the survival of the fittest because society has been structured so that even "weaker" or "defective" humans can survive as opposed to the "wild" where less desirable (desirable = more likely to produce healthy offspring who live and go on to reproduce on their own) traits would eventually phase out due to them not producing as many offspring.
What do you mean by "nature" ? |
Nature as opposed to human society. And what I'm asking is, what do you mean when you say we no longer live by the survivial of the fittest? I mean what was life like during the cave days? Did women depend that much on men as much as men depended on women as far as mating was concerned? I don't disagree that we now live in a society where life expectancy isn't cut short for the "weaker" or that we are having to live like hunters and gathers but in terms of attraction, what IS natural and what ISN'T? Survival of the fittest can mean anything ie adaptability.
EDIT: as much as men depended on women not men... 
_________________
Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
-Thomas Paine
|
|
| Back to top |
|
myth
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 17, 2011
Age: 27
Posts: 707
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just explained what survival of the fittest means in the quote that you posted. Animals with traits that are more likely to produce healthy offspring that in turn reproduce themselves = fittest.
Who even said anything in this thread about women depending on men? Social status and high resources as being desirable traits doesn't in any way indicate that the partner is unable to survive on her own or needs those things. Women can have resources and social status too, you know and males can also find that desirable.
"Natural" is a meaningless term to me. Everything occuring in the universe is natural.
_________________
Non-NT something. Married to a diagnosed aspie.
Nothing is absolute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MissConstrue
~Meow Clawdius~
Joined: Feb 05, 2008
Age: 31
Posts: 19686
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| myth wrote: | | I just explained what survival of the fittest means in the quote that you posted. Animals with traits that are more likely to produce healthy offspring that in turn reproduce themselves = fittest. |
Sorry I guess I missed because I still don't see it. But now that I'm going back into this thread now I see what you mean.
| myth wrote: | | Who even said anything in this thread about women depending on men? Social status and high resources as being desirable traits doesn't in any way indicate that the partner is unable to survive on her own or needs those things. Women can have resources and social status too, you know and males can also find that desirable. |
I guess because I was looking at your earlier claim.
| myth wrote: | | ^ It's instinctual to look for a mate with "survival skills" which has evolved into "lots of money" or "a good career" in modern society. Cars can be an indicator of such. It's like a bird building a big fancy nest to attract his mate. |
| myth wrote: | | "Natural" is a meaningless term to me. Everything occuring in the universe is natural. |
I don't disagree here. Hoewver it is interesting how humans define what is acceptably natural and what is natural.
_________________
Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.
-Thomas Paine
|
|
| Back to top |
|
myth
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 17, 2011
Age: 27
Posts: 707
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I still don't see how "survival skills can translate to money or career in modern society" = women depend on men?
_________________
Non-NT something. Married to a diagnosed aspie.
Nothing is absolute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
NeuroDiversity
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: Mar 05, 2012
Posts: 40
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm. If fancy cars and other symbols of wealth are a modern proxy for a man's ability to survive and care for others (in a survival sense), and many women unconsciously gravitate to that signal, then maybe I should drive one of my nicer cars on a date... If by chance that date one day led to children, then maybe I should aim to pass on both my survival genes and this hypothetical woman's "gold finder" genes (don't like the "digger" connotation)?
Just thinking out loud... Most of my brain still says rent a Honda for at least the first several dates.
_________________
D in So Cal, USA
Official Dx: ASD and ADHD
|
|
| Back to top |
|
hyperlexian
loves the man who typed too much and ran outta spa
Joined: Jul 22, 2010
Age: 41
Posts: 21969
Location: with bucephalus
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Face_of_Boo wrote: | | hyperlexian wrote: | women AREN'T more attracted to a man's survival value. women do not depend on men for survival, nor have they done so for most of human prehistory. there are people who are attracted to wealth for personal or cultural reasons, but it is not biological.
personal qualities are not manifested in material wealth either - thankfully most people know this quite clearly. |
I agree with the other user who used the peacock feather example.
You are failing to understand that 'wealth' was manifested in a totally different form in the prehistory, sure there were no real assets and currency back then but it could be manifested in the number of deer the caveman could hunt.
And there ARE studies that contradict what you're claiming:
| Quote: | A British study showed a positive correlation between men with greater resources and greater reproductive success (Nettle and Pollet, 2008). This was not only true of men of industrial societies, but of hunting and gathering societies, as well. In polygynous African societies, men of greater wealth can afford to take more wives resulting in greater reproductive success.
Read more: http://www.infobarrel.com/Factors_In_Human_Mate_Selection#ixzz1r3tqGbm6 |
|
most societies in prehistory were not polygynous. that study only looked at societies where men already hold the majority of wealth and power, and assessed what women desired from a lowered position.
prehistoric societies were largely egalitarian. NOBODY held the wealth and NOBODY held the power over the rest of the society. men and women were most likely equal - even physically. in fact, men and women are very close in size compared to to the sexual dimorphism of other primates. if it were always the strongest hunters who mated instead of most of the men in a group, then men in our society would be twice the size of women because that's what we would be selecting for.
women did not depend on men for hunting skills. people can obtain complete proteins from eating a variety of vegetables and legumes. meat is awesome but not completely necessary. and in the long winters, it is both dried meat and the gathered food that stays preserved for people to eat.
the study you linked is doing a "flintstonization" of society. they back-attributing modern cultural norms onto prehistoric societies. this is extremely inaccurate. i do think that there are cultural factors that lead some women to mate with richer men, but it is not biological.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5043493.html#5043493 |
|
| Back to top |
|
hyperlexian
loves the man who typed too much and ran outta spa
Joined: Jul 22, 2010
Age: 41
Posts: 21969
Location: with bucephalus
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| myth wrote: | | Women aren't completely dependent on men nor are men completely dependent on women. However both tend choose mates that show in various ways that they will be a good parent and ensure the survival of their offspring. It's been studied at length and is clearly apparent in the animal kingom. Not sure why this is even a debate. |
that is reductionistic and does not factor in any recent research that points to the fact that natural selection can happen on a sperm/egg level.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5043493.html#5043493 |
|
| Back to top |
|
myth
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 17, 2011
Age: 27
Posts: 707
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hyperlexian wrote: | | myth wrote: | | Women aren't completely dependent on men nor are men completely dependent on women. However both tend choose mates that show in various ways that they will be a good parent and ensure the survival of their offspring. It's been studied at length and is clearly apparent in the animal kingom. Not sure why this is even a debate. |
that is reductionistic and does not factor in any recent research that points to the fact that natural selection can happen on a sperm/egg level. |
Why should it when that wasn't what we were talking about?
_________________
Non-NT something. Married to a diagnosed aspie.
Nothing is absolute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
hyperlexian
loves the man who typed too much and ran outta spa
Joined: Jul 22, 2010
Age: 41
Posts: 21969
Location: with bucephalus
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| myth wrote: | | hyperlexian wrote: | | myth wrote: | | Women aren't completely dependent on men nor are men completely dependent on women. However both tend choose mates that show in various ways that they will be a good parent and ensure the survival of their offspring. It's been studied at length and is clearly apparent in the animal kingom. Not sure why this is even a debate. |
that is reductionistic and does not factor in any recent research that points to the fact that natural selection can happen on a sperm/egg level. |
Why should it when that wasn't what we were talking about? |
you are talking about how women choose mates, and you are incorrect in your assumprtions.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5043493.html#5043493 |
|
| Back to top |
|
