Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

"Nice Guys of OK Cupid" Website

Page 9 of 12 [ 190 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Shau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Age: 166
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

03 Jan 2013, 1:39 am

DefinitelyKmart wrote:
Shau wrote:

Then I suppose feeling entitled works out. Is there reason NOT to reward such behavior if resources permit? Think about it in terms of game theory. Why on earth would you EVER want to help a friend unless they were going to, in some form or another, reciprocate later on down the road?

I once found a friend in a near suicidal state, splitting up with gf ect he was distraught, i took him out for a few beers ect chatted with him made him feel better. however afterwards i was troubled, i couldn't work out whether i had done it through altruism, or by wanting to make myself feel good, by doing a good deed, i would like to say the former, but i genuinely believe i did it for the latter.


The trick is to not get upset about it. The reason we do good things for other people, is because it makes us feel good and we get the chance to be reciprocated on said thing later. The reason it makes us feel good? Nature's way of facilitating humans and other animals to work together, because it is a powerful group-based survival strategy.

You shouldn't be upset knowing this any more than you should be upset knowing that your emotions are nothing more than an electrochemical dynamo in your brain. Also, altruism can be an evolutionary-successful strategy.



DefinitelyKmart
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 262

03 Jan 2013, 1:46 am

Not upset by it as such i just found it odd that my brain choose to justify it that way, rather than being a good thing to do, but yeah i totally agree, about the game theory thing people definitely look to exploit different characteristics, just alot of people cannot accept that they have very little to add.



meems
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,869

03 Jan 2013, 1:49 am

Shau wrote:
meems wrote:
I'm applying human-like thinking to human interactions. I haven't said nature feels entitled, I've said if some guy is feeling punished because his behavior isn't being rewarded with attention from a member of the opposite sex, he obviously feels entitled. He needs to take a look at himself and see what he's doing wrong if this situation is recurring. Maybe it's the specific women he's pursuing, maybe it's that he's not pursuing at all etc.

Showing up to help a female move or do house repairs or just listen to her cry, that's all positive action, but all he's showing is that he's a reliable friend.

Also, I don't think of casual debates on message boards as a battle meant to lead up to a victor. So. Yeah.


Then I suppose feeling entitled works out. Is there reason NOT to reward such behavior if resources permit? Think about it in terms of game theory. Why on earth would you EVER want to help a friend unless they were going to, in some form or another, reciprocate later on down the road?


Rewarding friendship with friendship ends up being referred to as the "friend zone". There doesn't need to be a reason not to reward friendship with romantic attention. No excuses needed.


_________________
http://www.facebook.com/eidetic.onus
http://eidetic-onus.tumblr.com/
Warning, my tumblr is a man-free zone :)


Shau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Age: 166
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

03 Jan 2013, 1:56 am

meems wrote:
Rewarding friendship with friendship ends up being referred to as the "friend zone". There doesn't need to be a reason not to reward friendship with romantic attention. No excuses needed.


Can't really disagree with that sentiment. The real problem, in my eyes, is when people let attraction dictate romance, which I think is a bad idea. Imo, an intelligent but ugly woman should always be picked over a chick that's hot and that's it. Similarly, an unattractive but productive guy should always be picked over the dickish playboy with little else to offer.



meems
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Dec 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,869

03 Jan 2013, 2:07 am

Did we just write all of that and then end up in agreement?


_________________
http://www.facebook.com/eidetic.onus
http://eidetic-onus.tumblr.com/
Warning, my tumblr is a man-free zone :)


Shau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Age: 166
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

03 Jan 2013, 2:10 am

meems wrote:
Did we just write all of that and then end up in agreement?


In the end, we might have agreed all along, just the fact that we might be coming at it from such hugely different viewpoints, that at first it seemed like we conflicted. That ALSO often happens a lot in debate. People often agree on the same thing for different reasons. There's always the possibility of communication errors on one or both parties as well.

WOOHOO LOGIC!



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

03 Jan 2013, 2:50 am

hyperlexian wrote:
if a man prefers that a woman should shave her legs, there is probably a question for that somewhere. but you can still prefer it and not expect her to be obliged. it's basically asking whether it is an absolute sticking point or not - a dealbreaker. if it isn't a dealbreaker, it seems like a "no" would cover it. and if a person is unsure what "obligation" means, they shouldn't answer the question perhaps.



I think they meant more as self obligation or maybe social obligation (and not obliged by the man); I have the social obligation to shave my beard; I can choose to look like a caveman (and scream Freeeedooooom) but society, women and workplace would reject me.

It's a feminist trap question, I say.



BlueMax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,285

03 Jan 2013, 3:01 am

DefinitelyKmart wrote:
Shau wrote:
JBlitzen wrote:
Has this been posted yet?

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-harsh-truths-that-will-make-you-better-person/

oh man i started crying half way through the first example its hilairious

Cracked is good for that - you could easily spend all day reading their hilarious (but often true) stuff!



Shau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Age: 166
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

03 Jan 2013, 3:01 am

Why am I quoted saying nothing in that quote cascade? Just curious.



DefinitelyKmart
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Apr 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 262

03 Jan 2013, 3:03 am

Shau wrote:
Why am I quoted saying nothing in that quote cascade? Just curious.

i may have failed to delete you out of it im not sure O.o



BlueMax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,285

03 Jan 2013, 3:04 am

For some reason you were in the post I quoted... it was empty there, too. :shrug:



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

03 Jan 2013, 4:12 am

crystallinegreen wrote:
What strikes me is how entitled a lot of so-called "nice guys" feel to a woman. It's possible to observe this kind of "I'm a nice guy and nobody will give me the sex :( " whining everywhere on the web, and often you can notice the same guys elsewhere commenting about women/female celebrities etc that they find unappealing as if they shouldn't be breathing the air. Yet they'll happily rile at the way women around them discount them as potential mates on the basis of their own sexual or personal preferences. "How dare they?! I'm NICE!" Nice isn't a remarkable thing to be.. the vast majority of people are nice, and consider it a standard basis for interaction. If all you have to bring to the table is being a nice guy, then you'd think your time would be best spent on developing your other attributes.. but apparently some men find it preferable to sulk and expend a great deal of energy bashing the mean wimminz that won't give them what they want. What gave them the impression they were entitled to a woman of their choosing just for being alive..? 8O


I think it's a circular thing - they get rejected by women and therefore develop a nasty attitude to them, then the nasty attitude puts women off further and so it keeps perpetuating itself.



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

03 Jan 2013, 4:44 am

Shau wrote:
meems wrote:
Rewarding friendship with friendship ends up being referred to as the "friend zone". There doesn't need to be a reason not to reward friendship with romantic attention. No excuses needed.


Can't really disagree with that sentiment. The real problem, in my eyes, is when people let attraction dictate romance, which I think is a bad idea. Imo, an intelligent but ugly woman should always be picked over a chick that's hot and that's it. Similarly, an unattractive but productive guy should always be picked over the dickish playboy with little else to offer.


No, good looks can often be a sign of genetic good health and 'ugliness' the opposite - hence it
does not make evolutionary good sense for people to always go for the ugly intelligent person over the attractive stupid one. A ratio of half and half is a better balance between genetic good health and intelligence.



Shau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Age: 166
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

03 Jan 2013, 4:53 am

nessa238 wrote:
No, good looks can often be a sign of genetic good health and 'ugliness' the opposite - hence it
does not make evolutionary good sense for people to always go for the ugly intelligent person over the attractive stupid one. A ratio of half and half is a better balance between genetic good health and intelligence.


You're jumping right into my arena, you ready? Now, 100 years ago or more, your argument might have held water. However, there has been no studies that I'm aware of linking attractiveness and mortality in today's modern world. Health? Perhaps, but it's a moot point given that this difference in health is generally not enough to result in mortality.

Plus, even if it did, it would only make sense from an INDIVIDUAL standpoint. The intelligence is capable of being better for the species as a whole, as that intelligence would be capable of improving things such as science and technology. Want to know what happens when species put too much emphasis on individual propagation of genes instead of species-level survival? They go extinct. This is one of the biggest reasons the Irish Elk is thought to have gone extinct, and is thought to be one of the biggest reasons why the peafowl is in decline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Elk

Now we humans are unlikely to go extinct any time soon, but the point is clearly made. No matter which way you swing it, intelligence is always going to be vastly superior to attractiveness, especially since technology is capable of readily supplanting and augmenting health.



nessa238
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,908
Location: UK

03 Jan 2013, 5:02 am

Shau wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
No, good looks can often be a sign of genetic good health and 'ugliness' the opposite - hence it
does not make evolutionary good sense for people to always go for the ugly intelligent person over the attractive stupid one. A ratio of half and half is a better balance between genetic good health and intelligence.


You're jumping right into my arena, you ready? Now, 100 years ago or more, your argument might have held water. However, there has been no studies that I'm aware of linking attractiveness and mortality in today's modern world. Health? Perhaps, but it's a moot point given that this difference in health is generally not enough to result in mortality.

Plus, even if it did, it would only make sense from an INDIVIDUAL standpoint. The intelligence is capable of being better for the species as a whole, as that intelligence would be capable of improving things such as science and technology. Want to know what happens when species put too much emphasis on individual propagation of genes instead of species-level survival? They go extinct. This is one of the biggest reasons the Irish Elk is thought to have gone extinct, and is thought to be one of the biggest reasons why the peafowl is in decline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Elk

Now we humans are unlikely to go extinct any time soon, but the point is clearly made. No matter which way you swing it, intelligence is always going to be vastly superior to attractiveness, especially since technology is capable of readily supplanting and augmenting health.


Ok but attractiveness is what the genes use to encourage a person to mate so less attractive people don't get to mate as often/at all, hence their genes are less likely to survive. Hence attractiveness is obviously going to increase and in comparison plainer people will suffer more from not keeping up.

I know for a fact that when I was growing up young people weren't anywhere near as attractive as most seem to be now - I know the general attractiveness level has increased a lot even in my lifetime.

In other words, you can be as intelligent as you like but if no one wants to mate with you, your genes will not be passed on, hence it makes perfect sense for a less attractive, intelligent person to find a partner who is as good looking as possible, in order to give their intelligent offspring a greater chance of attracting a partner to perpetuate the line. It's not the fact of being attractive in itself - attractiveness is what gives your genes more likelihood of being passed on - it's a facilitator.



Shau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Age: 166
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,270

03 Jan 2013, 5:18 am

nessa238 wrote:
Ok but attractiveness is what the genes use to encourage a person to mate so less attractive people don't get to mate as often/at all, hence their genes are less likely to survive. Hence attractiveness is obviously going to increase and in comparison plainer people will suffer more from not keeping up.

I know for a fact that when I was growing up young people weren't anywhere near as attractive as most seem to be now - I know the general attractiveness level has increased a lot even in my lifetime.

In other words, you can be as intelligent as you like but if no one wants to mate with you, your genes will not be passed on, hence it makes perfect sense for a less attractive, intelligent person to find a partner who is as good looking as possible, in order to give their intelligent offspring a greater chance of attracting a partner to perpetuate the line. It's not the fact of being attractive in itself - attractiveness is what gives your genes more likelihood of being passed on - it's a facilitator.


Technically nothing you have said is wrong here. The whole point I was making is that Nature is the Blind Watchmaker, whereas we humans can have eyes that Nature does not. It's true that attractiveness is a key part of passing on the genes, but that doesn't mean that's the best route for humanity. As intelligent, thinking creatures, we humans have the unique ability to hijack our own evolutionary processes with willful decisions and technology. We can CHOOSE to ignore the attraction part of the equation and mate with ugly but intelligent people anyway, which is ultimately to the benefit of the species.