rabbittss
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 30, 2011
Posts: 1348
|
 Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 11:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| edgewaters wrote: | | rabbittss wrote: | | I measure every thing/person/activity on a sliding scale of its attractiveness, to me. I've never ONCE to my knowledge said that it makes these observations universal. I'm the only person I speak for. I'm stating my preferences. That is it. If other people see things differently than I do, thats a good thing, all that means though is they have a different system of categorizing than I do. |
So why are you worried about where you fit in someone else's scale (if they even have one like you do)? Your big complaint was that she'd incorrectly assessed your status/ranking. That implies a universal standard. |
She obviously mis-assessed me because she is trying to assign me some one below my standards, even after I've made my standards clear by approaching her. That means either she is undervaluing me, or overvaluing herself. Or she's one of the two types of people, those who can extrapolate data from incomplete sources..
I really don't know how much more clear I can make this, but I'm relatively certain that no matter what I say you are going to find fault with it.
Last edited by rabbittss on Sun May 06, 2012 11:50 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Delphiki
Launchie
Joined: Apr 15, 2012
Age: 23
Posts: 1350
Location: My own version of reality
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rabbittss wrote: | | edgewaters wrote: | | rabbittss wrote: | | I measure every thing/person/activity on a sliding scale of its attractiveness, to me. I've never ONCE to my knowledge said that it makes these observations universal. I'm the only person I speak for. I'm stating my preferences. That is it. If other people see things differently than I do, thats a good thing, all that means though is they have a different system of categorizing than I do. |
So why are you worried about where you fit in someone else's scale (if they even have one like you do)? Your big complaint was that she'd incorrectly assessed your status/ranking. That implies a universal standard. |
She obviously mis-assessed me because she is trying to assign me some one below my standards, even after I've made my standards clear by approaching her. That means either she is undervaluing me, or overvaluing herself. Or she's one of the two types of people, those who can extrapolate data from incomplete sources..
I really don't know how much more clear I can make this. |
I think it is weird that you are acting like looks are 99% of what matter. I am not saying they do not matter, but they should not be your primary basis
_________________
Trolls exist! They steal your socks, but only the left ones. I wonder what is up with that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
rabbittss
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 30, 2011
Posts: 1348
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Delphiki wrote: | | rabbittss wrote: | | edgewaters wrote: | | rabbittss wrote: | | I measure every thing/person/activity on a sliding scale of its attractiveness, to me. I've never ONCE to my knowledge said that it makes these observations universal. I'm the only person I speak for. I'm stating my preferences. That is it. If other people see things differently than I do, thats a good thing, all that means though is they have a different system of categorizing than I do. |
So why are you worried about where you fit in someone else's scale (if they even have one like you do)? Your big complaint was that she'd incorrectly assessed your status/ranking. That implies a universal standard. |
She obviously mis-assessed me because she is trying to assign me some one below my standards, even after I've made my standards clear by approaching her. That means either she is undervaluing me, or overvaluing herself. Or she's one of the two types of people, those who can extrapolate data from incomplete sources..
I really don't know how much more clear I can make this. |
I think it is weird that you are acting like looks are 99% of what matter. I am not saying they do not matter, but they should not be your primary basis |
I have a totally different scale for intelligence.
http://tfwiki.net/w2/images2/f/fd/G1Brainstorm_toy.jpg Easiest way to explain it is with this photo. Yes I realize it's a toy, but look at the photo and you will see one of the toys gimmicks is a series of values. Each of the different "heads" has it's own value, which will present itself no matter which body you put it on.
I have a scale very similar to that, One value for looks, one value for interests and opinions, one value for intelligence. But just like with buying a toy in a toy store, you buy the one which you find the most visually appealing, unless of course it's a series such at that, that had a TV series and you might buy it based on the character it represents. The problem with that is, humans don't have a TV series for me to watch to find out what the person is really like, so I have to use the method of visual selection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
spongy
...
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
Age: 22
Posts: 7412
Location: Patiently waiting for the seventh wave
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rabbittss wrote: | | edgewaters wrote: | | rabbittss wrote: | | I measure every thing/person/activity on a sliding scale of its attractiveness, to me. I've never ONCE to my knowledge said that it makes these observations universal. I'm the only person I speak for. I'm stating my preferences. That is it. If other people see things differently than I do, thats a good thing, all that means though is they have a different system of categorizing than I do. |
So why are you worried about where you fit in someone else's scale (if they even have one like you do)? Your big complaint was that she'd incorrectly assessed your status/ranking. That implies a universal standard. |
She obviously mis-assessed me because she is trying to assign me some one below my standards, even after I've made my standards clear by approaching her. That means either she is undervaluing me, or overvaluing herself. Or she's one of the two types of people, those who can extrapolate data from incomplete sources..
I really don't know how much more clear I can make this, but I'm relatively certain that no matter what I say you are going to find fault with it. |
Heres something that you may find shocking:
Not all people decide who they date based on some sort of social standard scale.
For example the only time Ive actually been approached by a female on terms of a date and all that was when I just stopped caring. My parents made me mad at them(that belongs on another thread) and they care quite a lot about social appearance and how people see them/their children, they mistreated me in some ways that should probably go on another thread and I spent over a year without a haircut/shaving... there are pictures that could confirm that I was at my worst.
Why was I approached: I have no clue.
Another shocking fact: Some people dont have a close minded idea on who to date and they may assume that you are as open minded as them.
So the fact that you approach someone isnt enough to extrapolate that you have this obsession about number scales... unless you tell them(Im assuming you dont) |
|
| Back to top |
|
Delphiki
Launchie
Joined: Apr 15, 2012
Age: 23
Posts: 1350
Location: My own version of reality
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hyperlexian has pointed out some studies that show if you know someone than you find them more attractive. So do you only go for WASP's? 
(I don't know if that term is well known or used outside of the US)
_________________
Trolls exist! They steal your socks, but only the left ones. I wonder what is up with that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
rabbittss
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 30, 2011
Posts: 1348
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Delphiki wrote: | Hyperlexian has pointed out some studies that show if you know someone than you find them more attractive. So do you only go for WASP's?
(I don't know if that term is well known or used outside of the US) |
I don't date outside of my culture, no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
DogsWithoutHorses
mockingbyrd
Joined: Apr 06, 2012
Posts: 1145
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Delphiki wrote: | Hyperlexian has pointed out some studies that show if you know someone than you find them more attractive. So do you only go for WASP's?
(I don't know if that term is well known or used outside of the US) |
It would be interesting is someone had a professed preference for protestants.
| rabbittss wrote: |
She obviously mis-assessed me because she is trying to assign me some one below my standards, even after I've made my standards clear by approaching her. That means either she is undervaluing me, or overvaluing herself. Or she's one of the two types of people, those who can extrapolate data from incomplete sources..
I really don't know how much more clear I can make this, but I'm relatively certain that no matter what I say you are going to find fault with it. |
Or maybe you mis-assessed you...
Quite possibly she doesn't think of herself as inherently better, or more worthy that her friend.
Or quite possibly she wasn't trying to make a comment on your 'rank' but thought two people she knew had similar interests/compatible personalities.
_________________
If your success is defined as being well adjusted to injustice and well adapted to indifference, then we don’t want successful leaders. We want great leaders- who are unbought, unbound, unafraid, and unintimidated to tell the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Delphiki
Launchie
Joined: Apr 15, 2012
Age: 23
Posts: 1350
Location: My own version of reality
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rabbittss wrote: |
I have a scale very similar to that, One value for looks, one value for interests and opinions, one value for intelligence. But just like with buying a toy in a toy store, you buy the one which you find the most visually appealing, unless of course it's a series such at that, that had a TV series and you might buy it based on the character it represents. The problem with that is, humans don't have a TV series for me to watch to find out what the person is really like, so I have to use the method of visual selection. |
Are you not realizing how this can seem degrading to others, and why DogsWithoutHorses is having an issue with it?
I don't think Sally is very attractive, so I think she is 3/5th's of a person
_________________
Trolls exist! They steal your socks, but only the left ones. I wonder what is up with that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
rabbittss
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 30, 2011
Posts: 1348
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Delphiki wrote: | | rabbittss wrote: |
I have a scale very similar to that, One value for looks, one value for interests and opinions, one value for intelligence. But just like with buying a toy in a toy store, you buy the one which you find the most visually appealing, unless of course it's a series such at that, that had a TV series and you might buy it based on the character it represents. The problem with that is, humans don't have a TV series for me to watch to find out what the person is really like, so I have to use the method of visual selection. |
Are you not realizing how this can seem degrading to others, and why DogsWithoutHorses is having an issue with it?
I don't think Sally is very attractive, so I think she is 3/5th's of a person |
No I don't think she is 3/5ths of a person, I just think her scores aren't high enough for me to interested in. Unfortunately at this point in my life, I'm not desperate enough to settle for some one I don't find visually attractive, regardless of their personalities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
DW_a_mom
Ignoring the To-Do List
Joined: Feb 23, 2008
Posts: 9303
Location: Northern California
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rabbittss wrote: | | edgewaters wrote: | | rabbittss wrote: | | I measure every thing/person/activity on a sliding scale of its attractiveness, to me. I've never ONCE to my knowledge said that it makes these observations universal. I'm the only person I speak for. I'm stating my preferences. That is it. If other people see things differently than I do, thats a good thing, all that means though is they have a different system of categorizing than I do. |
So why are you worried about where you fit in someone else's scale (if they even have one like you do)? Your big complaint was that she'd incorrectly assessed your status/ranking. That implies a universal standard. |
She obviously mis-assessed me because she is trying to assign me some one below my standards, even after I've made my standards clear by approaching her. That means either she is undervaluing me, or overvaluing herself. Or she's one of the two types of people, those who can extrapolate data from incomplete sources..
I really don't know how much more clear I can make this, but I'm relatively certain that no matter what I say you are going to find fault with it. |
YOU are failing to understand that what you need in a relationship, what it takes to be HAPPY, cannot be measured by ANY standard, and sometimes our friends sees our NEEDS more than we do. If you insist on seeing these things in black and white grades or levels of value, you could be missing out on someone who would actually be a fantastic partner for you. Your loss, really, but then I don't want to hear it when you are older and lonely and blaming it on everyone but yourself. You owe it to YOURSELF to give a broader group of people a CHANCE. You don't have to hook with them, but you SHOULD give them an honest CHANCE.
You would be surprised at how many men I've had crushes on who ended up with women one might have considered too far below their attractiveness rank. They could have had anyone, and in the end they chose the person who met their needs best, and threw out the social rank rule book. Those are the most solid couples I know, that really matched up based on intangibles none of the rest of us can see. So after a lifetime of watching what makes a successful couple, I will say that you would be a FOOL if you allowed your sense of "rank" to be defined by how you perceive the "rank" of the person you are considering dating, and when you refuse to date someone simply for falling below a set standard, you are doing just that: defining yourself by how you define them.
I understand that we all must be attracted to the person we are with, but looks fade and real love comes from someplace else. As it was noted in a post above, knowing someone makes them more attractive. If someone has features that are a huge and permanent turn off, fine, take them out of the pool, but simply because you didn't think they ranked high enough? Do that, and you'll never be truly happy.
_________________
Mom to an amazing AS boy (plus a non-AS daughter). Have at least a few AS genes myself, although probably more NT than AS.
---
Think of the greening of my name as an emeritus thing; I used to be a moderator but am retired and have no authority to act |
|
| Back to top |
|
DW_a_mom
Ignoring the To-Do List
Joined: Feb 23, 2008
Posts: 9303
Location: Northern California
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rabbittss wrote: | | Delphiki wrote: | | rabbittss wrote: |
I have a scale very similar to that, One value for looks, one value for interests and opinions, one value for intelligence. But just like with buying a toy in a toy store, you buy the one which you find the most visually appealing, unless of course it's a series such at that, that had a TV series and you might buy it based on the character it represents. The problem with that is, humans don't have a TV series for me to watch to find out what the person is really like, so I have to use the method of visual selection. |
Are you not realizing how this can seem degrading to others, and why DogsWithoutHorses is having an issue with it?
I don't think Sally is very attractive, so I think she is 3/5th's of a person |
No I don't think she is 3/5ths of a person, I just think her scores aren't high enough for me to interested in. Unfortunately at this point in my life, I'm not desperate enough to settle for some one I don't find visually attractive, regardless of their personalities. |
May I be blunt? If you are thinking that way, you aren't ready for a serious relationship. You don't understand what it takes.
Smart women will throw you back into the pond.
In other words, change your thinking or you'll get nowhere. In my experience, women don't want to be with guys who think the way you do. At minimum, you'll have to learn to walk the talk about not being so superficial.
I am sorry if it seems like I am attacking you, and since I don't know you beyond the few posts I've read in this thread, I could be way off base, but I don't want you to end up unhappy in a few decades wondering why you never were able to get what you thought you deserved. You need to hear the impression you are making here, and how much the women I've known in my life reject it. I get frustrated reading the subset of men on this board who blame their issues on women when they have spent years refusing to hear about the turn offs they, themselves, project - I don't want anyone to end up being "that" guy, it seems like such an unhappy place. And what you've said here ... HUGE turn off, HUGE roadblock to building any relationship. IMHO.
It is entirely in your power to change it, to make a different choice, or I wouldn't be making this pitch.
_________________
Mom to an amazing AS boy (plus a non-AS daughter). Have at least a few AS genes myself, although probably more NT than AS.
---
Think of the greening of my name as an emeritus thing; I used to be a moderator but am retired and have no authority to act |
|
| Back to top |
|
Who_Am_I
almost human
Joined: Aug 28, 2005
Age: 29
Posts: 10545
Location: My body is in Brisbane and my mind is in the gutter. :D
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rabbittss wrote: | | Delphiki wrote: | | rabbittss wrote: | | edgewaters wrote: | | rabbittss wrote: | | I measure every thing/person/activity on a sliding scale of its attractiveness, to me. I've never ONCE to my knowledge said that it makes these observations universal. I'm the only person I speak for. I'm stating my preferences. That is it. If other people see things differently than I do, thats a good thing, all that means though is they have a different system of categorizing than I do. |
So why are you worried about where you fit in someone else's scale (if they even have one like you do)? Your big complaint was that she'd incorrectly assessed your status/ranking. That implies a universal standard. |
She obviously mis-assessed me because she is trying to assign me some one below my standards, even after I've made my standards clear by approaching her. That means either she is undervaluing me, or overvaluing herself. Or she's one of the two types of people, those who can extrapolate data from incomplete sources..
I really don't know how much more clear I can make this. |
I think it is weird that you are acting like looks are 99% of what matter. I am not saying they do not matter, but they should not be your primary basis |
I have a totally different scale for intelligence.
http://tfwiki.net/w2/images2/f/fd/G1Brainstorm_toy.jpg Easiest way to explain it is with this photo. Yes I realize it's a toy, but look at the photo and you will see one of the toys gimmicks is a series of values. Each of the different "heads" has it's own value, which will present itself no matter which body you put it on.
I have a scale very similar to that, One value for looks, one value for interests and opinions, one value for intelligence. But just like with buying a toy in a toy store, you buy the one which you find the most visually appealing, unless of course it's a series such at that, that had a TV series and you might buy it based on the character it represents. The problem with that is, humans don't have a TV series for me to watch to find out what the person is really like, so I have to use the method of visual selection. |
Personally, I chose my toys based on which did the most cool stuff.
I think, though, that this could end up in Adult if we discuss selection of partners according to what "cool" stuff they're willing to do.
_________________
Music Theory 101: Cadences.
Authentic cadence: V-I
Plagal cadence: IV-I
Deceptive cadence: V- ANYTHING BUT I !!!!
Beethoven cadence: V-I-V-I-V-V-V-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I! I! I! I I I |
|
| Back to top |
|
edgewaters
hibernating
Joined: Aug 17, 2006
Age: 40
Posts: 2426
Location: Ontario
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rabbittss wrote: | | She obviously mis-assessed me because she is trying to assign me some one below my standards, even after I've made my standards clear by approaching her. |
How she's supposed to know her friend is "lower" on your scale? That's assuming she even realizes you have this strange scale thing. All you've made clear is that she herself is acceptable. That's just a single point on your scale. The rest of it is unknown. Without belief in a universal scale, I cannot see how you could arrive at your conclusions logically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
rabbittss
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 30, 2011
Posts: 1348
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| edgewaters wrote: | | rabbittss wrote: | | She obviously mis-assessed me because she is trying to assign me some one below my standards, even after I've made my standards clear by approaching her. |
How she's supposed to know her friend is "lower" on your scale? That's assuming she even realizes you have this strange scale thing. All you've made clear is that she herself is acceptable. That's just a single point on your scale. The rest of it is unknown. Without belief in a universal scale, I cannot see how you could arrive at your conclusions logically. |
While I see what you are saying. The fact I asked *Her* out and not her friend, or a girl who looked like her friend, is the missing clue. Once you have that, you can easily gain the rest of the information needed. The only reason she would make this mistake is if she incorrectly assumed she was the TOP choice and was still in the same bracket as her friend who would be more towards the bottom, and that I can't really blame her for, even though it's not correct, she wouldn't be aware of that.
I can respect her for not being interested in me physically, and I can certainly appreciate anyone who will tell me they don't like my personality, but to try and pawn me off on her friend who isn't as attractive as she is is just insulting to me on a very personal level, as what she is saying, in effect, is, you aren't good enough for me, but you are good enough for my friend. While at the same time I'm saying, you're friend isn't good enough for me, but you are. Thus, 3 people are left marginally less happy, rather than two people potentially being happy.
But such is the way of the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
DW_a_mom
Ignoring the To-Do List
Joined: Feb 23, 2008
Posts: 9303
Location: Northern California
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rabbittss wrote: | | edgewaters wrote: | | rabbittss wrote: | | She obviously mis-assessed me because she is trying to assign me some one below my standards, even after I've made my standards clear by approaching her. |
How she's supposed to know her friend is "lower" on your scale? That's assuming she even realizes you have this strange scale thing. All you've made clear is that she herself is acceptable. That's just a single point on your scale. The rest of it is unknown. Without belief in a universal scale, I cannot see how you could arrive at your conclusions logically. |
While I see what you are saying. The fact I asked *Her* out and not her friend, or a girl who looked like her friend, is the missing clue. Once you have that, you can easily gain the rest of the information needed. The only reason she would make this mistake is if she incorrectly assumed she was the TOP choice and was still in the same bracket as her friend who would be more towards the bottom, and that I can't really blame her for, even though it's not correct, she wouldn't be aware of that.
I can respect her for not being interested in me physically, and I can certainly appreciate anyone who will tell me they don't like my personality, but to try and pawn me off on her friend who isn't as attractive as she is is just insulting to me on a very personal level, as what she is saying, in effect, is, you aren't good enough for me, but you are good enough for my friend. While at the same time I'm saying, you're friend isn't good enough for me, but you are. Thus, 3 people are left marginally less happy, rather than two people potentially being happy.
But such is the way of the world. |
My sister pawned my husband off on me NOT because she thinks she is higher up on some scale than me, or because she didn't find him attractive enough, but because she thought him and I were more likely to be compatible on values, personality, and all the things that matter. I'd say it was a smart call, given that him and I are happily married, and she is now married to a man who was friends with our other sister first.
Of course, one difference is that my husband never was interested in my sister, she is too young for him, while you were actually interested in this girl, but your assumption of how she saw things is definitely unlikely to be accurate She thinks her friend is a great catch - that is how most women feel about their friends, and true friends don't introduce their female friends to guys they don't think also make decent catches. You should take it as a compliment.
I won't totally rule out that she is as you say, I do have a friend who used to flirt and reel in more guys than she could possibly date, so she would then try to match some of them up with her friends, which I didn't allow, because we were such opposite physical types that I just knew the guys couldn't be appreciating it, But you know something? In the end she couldn't hold onto a relationship, and is now twice divorced. the men she was with tended to be so ridiculously superficial, they would tell me all these wonderful things about her that I knew were not true, but they never wanted to hear the truth. Relationships can't be built on illusion.
_________________
Mom to an amazing AS boy (plus a non-AS daughter). Have at least a few AS genes myself, although probably more NT than AS.
---
Think of the greening of my name as an emeritus thing; I used to be a moderator but am retired and have no authority to act |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
