Guys, we all lost according to ladder theory!

Post Reply New Topic

You've also failed to even begin to refute my conclusion or premises in any way, shape or form. We can have a fun logical exercise without having to use statistics as a crutch can we not?



Weren't you the one who spoke about 3 times about "representative statistics", the statistics of disabled people, ranging from age 0 to death and across all types of disabilities are hardly representative to just people with ASD.

I can quote you a study that says men are the more troubled gender in dating, however its hardly representative of just men with ASD.

i'm out of that - there is absolutely no point in trying to argue which gender has it harder on WrongPlanet (or in the rest of the world). it inevitably leads to sexist posts, irate responses, and an utter lack of any factual data.

I don't understand how someone can put down many of the women on this forum, suggest most are unattractive and only think we're attractive based on men on this forum giving unrealistic attention, then say we have an easier time getting laid(which is hardly a measure of success in anything) despite us being "3's and 4's"

Which is it, we're deluded about how men see us, or we're "successful" because we're not seen as unattractive?

I'll admit I haven't read the thread but it caught my eye to see such contradictory arguments from you, TM.

They aren't contradictory....

The first one is a response to the concept of an inflated self image and high demands presented by some in the "What kind of guy would you never date" thread. You should also note that I have no idea what most of the women on this forum look like so it was not an observation based on appearance. If we use the simple 1 - 10 rating scale, logic dictates that most people will be somewhere between 4 - 6, so I hardly view a 3 - 4 as insulting unless one considers oneself to be above average to begin with, in which case it goes back to the concept of "inflated self image" and "inflated self-worth".

The other one merely argues that due to the manifestation of ASD traits women will have an easier time getting into relationships, mostly due to social dynamics and cultural expectations.

The two of them are not mutually exclusive.

Last edited by TM on 10 Sep 2012, 7:04 am, edited 2 times in total.

I think the bigger question isn't how correct TM's argument points are because on many a time he has come up as trumps, but rather why does it even matter in the first place? A bunch of statistics on a piece of paper or computer isn't going to change my individual circumstances or decide my luck.

I am in amazement this thread got bumped! The ladder theory has always been short of a few rungs and most definitely self defeatist. Newsflash - if you're ugly, about as charming as a sharp stone with turd on it, and have the social skills of Nick Griffin of course you're not going to get anywhere in the dating scene! I mean, there are things you can do to up your chances, yes, and that's great! But let's not pretend there is some theory involving wooden ladders and scales more unbalanced than Libra's.

If you're not good looking from general vote, people find you weird to talk to or creepy then it is not a theory it is just you and you should seek advice as an individual which is what people here at L&D are more than happy to give and more often than not it can turn out beneficial

In my opinion, too simple as a theory. And women are very different according to age.

Until 25 more or less, they are led by their hormones. So good look, self-confidence and some 'bad guy' air are almost 100%.

From 30s on, they feel the need to nest. So money and success take place.

From 40s on, no more hormones, no more need to nest, it's then when the 'intelligence, sense of humour, honesty, sensitivity and so' stuff comes to the foreground.

The argument itself isn't all that important to me, the conclusion is. If it turned out that women had more success getting into relationships, then we could analyze the variables of social interaction for each gender in that particular phase of the "dating game" to figure out what causes the gender difference.

Knowing that there is a difference is in and of itself meaningless, however knowing what causes it, can aid in figuring out how to remedy it. If data existed that showed that men with ASD struggle during the initial phase of social interaction, then that can be remedied with various forms of therapies.

Thanks to this thread, I've read the ladder *theory*. I cannot spend my time to criticize the unfounded arguments written there but I can give a sample.

This cannot be a general life purpose. A 70 year old woman may not prefer to pursue f*cking rich guys, I suppose. And setting a *purpose of life* for others is plain arrogance.

The theory also developed for middle & upper middle class western culture youth raised in capitalist economy, which is a narrow group when time/spatial/economical variation is considered. Hence, it gives absolutely no idea about general human nature. Yet, the theory fails to describe general behavior of the people in the group, and flaws in the theory were covered with arrogance again.

As a side note, I find the wording in ''f*cking hotter chicks'' disturbing. Some women may even find the general wording in the *theory* offensive.

In summary, this *theory* is simply ridiculous. That's it.

Last edited by Somberlain on 12 Sep 2012, 7:17 am, edited 3 times in total.

On the offensive note, I'm fairly certain that the Holy Roman Church found Galileo's theory that the earth revolves around the sun offensive.

I'm quite tired of all those absurdly detailed statistics about "the possibilities to get laid with a woman and why you are not getting laid".

If Galileo said ''F*ckin earth revolves like a sh*t you bunch of ret*ds'' your analogy would be right.

Women may find it offensive because of indelicacy, not the theory itself.

In that case, who cares?

Yeah, I'm sure the people with somebody or are getting laid are pretty tired of this as well.

Hm, what can I say. Everything is open to scrutiny. The greater the opinion the greater the chance this will be. The Ladder Theory's doctrinairian is exactly that, a doctrinairian. He writes off other people yet expects people to take him with the fullest of seriousness (while poorly attempting humor). If this theory had been shared by no offence, a greater mind, with more tact, it might come out less scathed in a forum such as this.

http://xkcd.com/153/
As xkcd puts it I was bared out of speaking at any major cryptography conference ever since it became clear all my algorithms were just thinly disguised missy elliot songs

Jokes are great but theres a time and place for them and whoever came up with this didnt take that in consideration.

Not really, even if I posted it in my most elegant and prosaic of prose, with the tact of and poise of Benjamin Disraeli, it would still get slaughtered. One of the more problematic aspects of this forum is the over the top reliance on source material and the credence given to such material. Especially on a sensitive topic such as this, where there is ample opportunity to get offended for a wide variety of different persons, anything posted without backing from at the very least a couple of reputable, peer reviewed sociological studies. A virtual library of Alexandria of psychological material which is no way is connected to evolutionary psychology or evolutionary biology (since those are just hogwash really *holds up sarcasm sign*) and various other scientific sources would be laughed out of the board.

As I've said in various ways before, the reliance on such material in a forum dedicated to interpersonal relationships, is highly problematic. Large scale sociological studies have limitations in that they are largely not applicable to individuals. Psychological studies have limitations in that they are largely not widely applicable. Furthermore, they rely on self-reporting or the subjective perception of the observant which only further compounds the issues.

Using biology has its own limitations, since it focuses on the nature part to the exclusion of the nurture part. It is fully possible to put together a "theory of attraction" based on a mixture of the various fields mentioned above (and most likely some I've forgotten to mention), however, as there will most likely not be a scholarly source for such a theory, it is "auto-rejected" by a large amount of this forum.

I could postulate that attraction (A) is combined by biological functions, psychological functions and cultural functions. To overly simplify, A=(B+P+C).

A could be said to be the combined self-perceived and socially reinforced value of ones own genes. To use the classic 1 - 10 rating system, if A = 5, then the combined sum of (B+P+C) must equal 5 or ideally exceed 5 in order for someone to be considered an attractive partner.

The biological functions would value things like strong genes, and is a largely subconscious process. In effect, our genes do the evaluation for us.

The Psychological functions are also largely subconscious, and are according to Freudian theory at least tied to our relationship with the parent who's gender we are ultimately attracted to. For a heterosexual male, this would be his mother, for a heterosexual female it would be her father. There are other influences, but this is just used to clarify.

Then the cultural effects influence the other two, for instance a culture where strong warriors are considered high value, a man with good "warrior genes" would be valued highly, whereas in a culture of intellectual pursuits, he may be valued less. In short, this reflects the values of the society in question.

However, there is little scientific backing for such a proposition, thus it is likely to be immediately disqualified wholly on this board.

So... what you're saying is:
*People get mad at things.
*The human condition is too varied and complex to apply any theory to all subsets and pairings of humans.
*Thus any theories on common human behaviour is still subjective regardless of the statistics, though there are probable outcomes.
*Therefore asking for any real proof of the above only stirs the pot and leads to people arguing about how correct or false the data is.
*So ultimately we should just all do ourselves a favour and stop trying to climb the ladder then there would be no theory to worry about