Guys, we all lost according to ladder theory!

Post Reply New Topic

You also need to keep in mind that this distinction when applied rigorously is erroneous, there is a reason why the concept of "the friend's zone" is such a common idea. If we assume that two people are friends and that there is sexual attraction between the two of them, the attraction needs to be strong enough to take a risk on moving from friendship to a romantic relationship.

Most humans are innately risk averse, so if the friendship value is stronger than the attraction value, then a romantic relationship will not happen.

To rationalize giving up?



Hopefully, after marriage, they would remain friends. That may explain high modern divorce rates. Couples marry based upon sexual attraction, which eventually wears off, and then they find that they can't really stand each other.



Not necessarily. I think that it is much risker to seek romance in a stranger versus someone you know well and consider a friend.



That's a bit silly.

Yup, spot on

You guys are over-analyzing.

The ladder theory is just a model. All models are wrong. Some models are useful. No model is worth obsessing over.

What TM was talking about really didn't have anything to do with ladder theory but just the false, western cultural distinction between romance and friendship.

Define "giving up", there really isn't a point in being a puppy dog chasing after a woman who already rejected you. It will either annoy her or boost her confidence (most likely a bit of both), while totally decimating your confidence and social status.





You are jumping from the "friends or romantic" phase to "we are married" phase. Evil Knievel couldn't make that leap as easily as you did. Odds are that the romantic relationship will fail and they're both out a friendship.






I disagree with your risk evaluation. If you seek romance in a friend, you risk losing the friendship. If you seek romance in a stranger, you risk discovering that you are incompatible after speaking to them for about 45 minutes and all you lost was 45 minutes.





Actually, it's quite simple, if you are a girl's best friend, and have a romantic interest in her. She is also your best friend, and she has a romantic interest in you. Both of you will make a calculation akin to "Is the benefit of trying a romantic relationship worth enough to weigh up for the risk of losing my best friend".

On the topic of "ladder theory"

It would be interesting to see a statistic of the women on this board and the men on this board, for number of sexual partners and number of romantic relationships for each gender. To see if women indeed do have it easier attracting a partner, because I'm willing to put money on that being true.

you're taking a leap from "number of sex partners" to "easier to attract a partner".

for your information, the one and only legitimate survey of men and women with physical and intellectual disabilities found that men are far more likely to end up in a long-term relationship.

There is no leap, its fairly straight forward logic.

Premise 1: A person who has easier access to something will have more of it.
Premise 2: Women with asperger and/or autism have more romantic and sexual partners than males with asperger and/or autism.

Conclusion: Therefore women with asperger/autism have an easier time gaining access to sexual and romantic partners.

Physical and intellectual disabilities is a broad term, and not even close to the data I would be interested in, which was confined to ONLY people with asperger and autism.

no, easier access to sex means just that and nothing more. romantic partners and sex partners are 2 different categories. and long-term partners are something else altogether.

and again, your conclusion is likely flawed because a reputable study found otherwise. unless you think asking people on an internet forum is equivalent to a sociological study?

Hence why I differentiated between romantic partners and sexual partners. Long term partners are merely romantic or sexual relationships that last for a determined time, which then is vulnerable to definitions. My definition of long-term will most likely not be equal to yours and so on.




Sociological study of people with a range of both physical and psychological disabilities does not equal a study of people with just either autism or aspergers. You should probably link the full Hyperlexian approved study, since you probably disqualified about 50 - 100 of them that disagree with your point of view.

The conclusion is logically sound, and comes naturally from the premises, so the premises would have to be flawed and they may be. However, you'd have to argue that not cite a lolstudy that you don't link. I also didn't spell out "long term relationship" so that entire line of argument from your side is a Straw man argument (happens when you change a person's argument to something else in order to refute it).

"success" is different for different people, hence why it made no sense to exclude long-term relationships. they are the goal for many people, so if a person has multiple false starts, they may have been unsuccessful in what they want.

http://www.handicap-international.fr/bi ... ekosha.pdf

your conclusion is not logically sound, as WP is likely not a cross section of all people with ASDs. you would have to first establish that it is before any conclusions could be extrapolated from that group. perhaps you are not aware of what is required for a "representative sample"

and i laugh most heartily at your 50 to 100 studies that disprove this. go ahead and link them, i'll be waiting.

STRAW MAN.



- Decent enough study, but it didn't include the raw statistical data.

- It doesn't separate out the different types of disabilities.

- Doesn't separate out the data in sexual relationships and romantic relationships.

Question, if I argued that women liked oral sex, would you link me a study showing that women dislike anal sex and argue based on that, because that's kind of what you're doing.



Read my argument again:



The statistical soundness of WP as a sample base is not included in making my argument sound or not. Perhaps you do not understand how logic works. Premise 1 can be argued without statistic support on a purely logical basis. Premise 2 can also be argued on the same grounds. The WP.net statistic is not needed for the argument to be sound.

You can refute it in 3 ways:
1. Argue that one or more of the premises are untrue based on logical argumentation.
2. Argue that one or more of the premises are untrue based on representative and accurate statistical data (which you have not provided).
3. A combination of both.

I will be happy to argue in favor of both my premises logically without any statistical data, purely based on logical argumentation. I will also do the same for my conclusion.



I think you misunderstood me, I asked me to link the study you approved of, because you auto-disqualify any other studies so rather than me digging up studies, I figured you could show me yours, I could tell you why using that study shows that you do not understand the argument, what constitutes a straw man fallacy, and that it is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and we could eliminate further study stroking and proceed with logic.

You've stated yourself that there is only 1 hyperlexian approved study on the subject.
You've linked that study.
It has been proven to be irrelevant to my argument (though relevant to the straw man you used to try and refute the argument I made).

Thus no more studies remain.

oh i see. so you don't have any studies that speak to the contrary. got it.

hahaha all of your rhetoric doesn't diminish the fact that you cannot use WP as a basis for thinking that women with ASDs have more success in dating (and there are no studies that would speak to the contrary, in spite of your hyperbolic statement).

you stated this:

and ended up with this:



i think that maybe you're still struggling with the concept of "representative samples". WrongPlanet men and women are not necessarily representative of the greater population of people with ASDs. now you know.

Well, you don't have any studies that speak on what I asked either:

ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PEOPLE ON WP WITH ASD BY GENDER

SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PEOPLE ON WP WITH ASD BY GENDER

You have a study, which states:



Which
A: Says NOTHING about men and women with ASD specifically.
B: Says NOTHING about number of relationships sexual or romantic among men and women with ASD specifically.
C: Says NOTHING about the population of WP.net.

Conclusions: Grats on citing a study which is about as relevant as a study on a homophobe is to the movie Home Alone.




There are 2 seperate issues here:
1. My desire to see a statistic of members of WP.net to see if the women on this board have on average more sexual and/or romantic partners than the men.

2. My logical argument made in reply to your statement (see below) which is unrelated to the prior interest in the statistics for WP.net members.



This is also when you made your first straw man in this argument by changing my premise from "romantic" and "sexual" relationships to "long term relationships.




I think you're still struggling with the written word. The members on WP.net are a representative sample of the members of WP.net. You are the one who dragged the greater population into it by making a straw man argument related to an irrelevant study including the general population, all disabilities and all age ranges (which are some of the short comings off that study).

When you changed my premise from :


To read:
Premise 2: Women with disabilities have more long term relationships than males with disabilities

You made a straw man fallacy.

Your representative sample argumentation can only be argued to be valid if we are in deed throughout this whole discussion talking about taking a sample from WP.net and applying that data to the whole population of people with ASD. We are not, or at least, I'm not.


So to sum up my argument:

A: I would like to see a survey done among members of wrongplanet.net about the number of sexual relationships they have had and the number of romantic relationships they have had based on their gender.

B: The logical argument:
Premise 1: A person who has easier access to something will have more of it.
Premise 2: Women with asperger and/or autism have more romantic and sexual partners than males with asperger and/or autism.

Conclusion: Therefore women with asperger/autism have an easier time gaining access to sexual and romantic partners.

Done to demonstrate that if someone has an easier time finding a partner, they will over time be more likely to have more partners.

Anything besides that is baggage that you brought with you in order to convolute the argument and better enabling you to change it into something you are capable of refuting.

except that you have no facts to support your conclusion, so your wall of text was frankly pointless. you're getting all hot and bothered about ideas that you can't support.

i told you the limitations of my study, but it at least addresses the fact that women with all types of disabilities are less likely to find a partner. ASDs would be included in that statistic. you have no evidence to the contrary.

It's been my experience that eccentric AS men are "weird and creepy", whereas eccentric AS women are "quirky and cute", more often than not.