Nice Guys and Love, what's your take on the issue

Page 83 of 83 [ 1243 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 79, 80, 81, 82, 83

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

18 Aug 2012, 12:27 am

deltafunction wrote:
Since it's relevant, I will talk about some study results that I have read about in the book that I mentioned.

Men to tend to go for younger women. When they rate attractiveness of pictures of women, the younger women tend to get the highest scores. Men in America tend to also marry women an average of around 3 years younger than them in the first marriage. In subsequent marriages, men tend to marry women who are even younger than them. These are just some examples of the studies in the book eluding to a trend.

There was one notable exception that was mentioned. When one rich man in his fifties divorced, he married an older woman who could help him raise his children. But as soon as his children were over 18, he divorced that woman and married a 23 year old Japanese woman. I found that story striking that the men who do not follow this norm may not have such good intentions as we would like to think.

The interpretation they gave was that unconsciously, he rates the older woman as more desirable than the younger women because of her child-rearing abilities. But as soon as that trait is no longer valuable to him, other women seem more attractive.

in more feminist/egalitarian societies, men and women are closer in age at first marriage.

and whoever someone "rates" as most attractive is irrelevant if it doesn't translate into real-life relationships. looking at pictures is different from interacting with others and actually dating them. people tend to date other people that are similar in age - 3 years is not a big age gap.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

18 Aug 2012, 2:18 am

deltafunction wrote:
Since it's relevant, I will talk about some study results that I have read about in the book that I mentioned.

Men to tend to go for younger women. When they rate attractiveness of pictures of women, the younger women tend to get the highest scores. Men in America tend to also marry women an average of around 3 years younger than them in the first marriage. In subsequent marriages, men tend to marry women who are even younger than them. These are just some examples of the studies in the book eluding to a trend.

There was one notable exception that was mentioned. When one rich man in his fifties divorced, he married an older woman who could help him raise his children. But as soon as his children were over 18, he divorced that woman and married a 23 year old Japanese woman. I found that story striking that the men who do not follow this norm may not have such good intentions as we would like to think.

The interpretation they gave was that unconsciously, he rates the older woman as more desirable than the younger women because of her child-rearing abilities. But as soon as that trait is no longer valuable to him, other women seem more attractive.

:roll:
... because American (edit: middle- to upper-class white) men are paradigmatic representatives for the entire species. (/sarcasm)
Since you're still beating that drum, here are a few evolutionists talking on the subject of evolutionary psychology:
the best overview, in podcast form:
http://www.rationallyspeakingpodcast.or ... ology.html
written form:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... round.html
some specific criticisms:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ined-pink/
http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2011 ... tions.html
http://crookedtimber.org/2012/01/16/hey ... te-no-wai/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/print/86893

edit: Aaannnd just for fun, a rant:
http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2009/02 ... king-shit/
quote:
Quote:
“Evolutionary Psychology” Is A Load Of f*****g s**t
February 18, 2009

Amanda has a detailed take down of a particular “evolutionary psychology” “study” yesterday that really makes clear that the motivation for this crapola is apologetics for misogyny. Here broader point–other than the specific takedown–is as follows:

[T]hese are troubling indicators that armchair evo psych “theories” about how women are biologically inferior to men have become so ingrained in our consciousness, that half-baked pseudo-science evolutionary just-so stories don’t have to be made up at all. Gender essentialist stories are now written, and the audience is free to assume that the measured trends are DNA-based and have no relationship to social conditioning at all.

As someone whose career is based on the reality of biological evolution, this “evo psych” arrant bullshit really pisses me the f**k off! There is absolutely no f*****g way that we could possibly distinguish the relative contributions of genetics and environment–including social environment–to complex social/psychological behaviors like human relationships even if that distinction were itself coherent. The entire f*****g fake-ass “discipline” is scientifically bankrupt, and populated solely by loser-ass “nice guy” motherfuckers who hate women because they can’t get laid.



DogsWithoutHorses
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2012
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,146
Location: New York

18 Aug 2012, 3:16 am

LKL wrote:
:roll:
... because American (edit: middle- to upper-class white) men are paradigmatic representatives for the entire species. (/sarcasm)
Since you're still beating that drum, here are a few evolutionists talking on the subject of evolutionary psychology:
the best overview, in podcast form:
http://www.rationallyspeakingpodcast.or ... ology.html
written form:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... round.html
some specific criticisms:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ined-pink/
http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2011 ... tions.html
http://crookedtimber.org/2012/01/16/hey ... te-no-wai/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/print/86893

edit: Aaannnd just for fun, a rant:
http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2009/02 ... *ing-sh**/
quote:
Quote:
“Evolutionary Psychology” Is A Load Of f***ing sh**
February 18, 2009

Amanda has a detailed take down of a particular “evolutionary psychology” “study” yesterday that really makes clear that the motivation for this crapola is apologetics for misogyny. Here broader point–other than the specific takedown–is as follows:

[T]hese are troubling indicators that armchair evo psych “theories” about how women are biologically inferior to men have become so ingrained in our consciousness, that half-baked pseudo-science evolutionary just-so stories don’t have to be made up at all. Gender essentialist stories are now written, and the audience is free to assume that the measured trends are DNA-based and have no relationship to social conditioning at all.

As someone whose career is based on the reality of biological evolution, this “evo psych” arrant bullshit really pisses me the f**k off! There is absolutely no f***ing way that we could possibly distinguish the relative contributions of genetics and environment–including social environment–to complex social/psychological behaviors like human relationships even if that distinction were itself coherent. The entire f***ing fake-ass “discipline” is scientifically bankrupt, and populated solely by loser-ass “nice guy” f**** who hate women because they can’t get laid.


thank you


_________________
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.


deltafunction
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jun 2012
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,094
Location: Lost

18 Aug 2012, 6:11 am

LKL wrote:
deltafunction wrote:
Since it's relevant, I will talk about some study results that I have read about in the book that I mentioned.

Men to tend to go for younger women. When they rate attractiveness of pictures of women, the younger women tend to get the highest scores. Men in America tend to also marry women an average of around 3 years younger than them in the first marriage. In subsequent marriages, men tend to marry women who are even younger than them. These are just some examples of the studies in the book eluding to a trend.

There was one notable exception that was mentioned. When one rich man in his fifties divorced, he married an older woman who could help him raise his children. But as soon as his children were over 18, he divorced that woman and married a 23 year old Japanese woman. I found that story striking that the men who do not follow this norm may not have such good intentions as we would like to think.

The interpretation they gave was that unconsciously, he rates the older woman as more desirable than the younger women because of her child-rearing abilities. But as soon as that trait is no longer valuable to him, other women seem more attractive.

:roll:
... because American (edit: middle- to upper-class white) men are paradigmatic representatives for the entire species. (/sarcasm)
Since you're still beating that drum, here are a few evolutionists talking on the subject of evolutionary psychology:
the best overview, in podcast form:
http://www.rationallyspeakingpodcast.or ... ology.html
written form:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... round.html
some specific criticisms:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ined-pink/
http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2011 ... tions.html
http://crookedtimber.org/2012/01/16/hey ... te-no-wai/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/print/86893

edit: Aaannnd just for fun, a rant:
http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2009/02 ... *ing-sh**/
quote:
Quote:
“Evolutionary Psychology” Is A Load Of f***ing sh**
February 18, 2009

Amanda has a detailed take down of a particular “evolutionary psychology” “study” yesterday that really makes clear that the motivation for this crapola is apologetics for misogyny. Here broader point–other than the specific takedown–is as follows:

[T]hese are troubling indicators that armchair evo psych “theories” about how women are biologically inferior to men have become so ingrained in our consciousness, that half-baked pseudo-science evolutionary just-so stories don’t have to be made up at all. Gender essentialist stories are now written, and the audience is free to assume that the measured trends are DNA-based and have no relationship to social conditioning at all.

As someone whose career is based on the reality of biological evolution, this “evo psych” arrant bullshit really pisses me the f**k off! There is absolutely no f***ing way that we could possibly distinguish the relative contributions of genetics and environment–including social environment–to complex social/psychological behaviors like human relationships even if that distinction were itself coherent. The entire f***ing fake-ass “discipline” is scientifically bankrupt, and populated solely by loser-ass “nice guy” f**** who hate women because they can’t get laid.


Okay, I mentioned one small theory, but that doesn't change what the studies have shown regarding men and age preference, so wth? That has nothing to do with the point of my post.

Let alone that quote you used doesn't have any factual evidence against evolutionary psychology in the first place, just a feminist rant to me. Feminists usually don't like evolutionary psychology theories, okay, I get why, it doesn't really paint women in a powerful light. But it's not that the psychologists are trying to do that, they are just trying to explain and observe human behaviour, just like with any other animals. I actually liked how the comments on this link explained that http://www.rationallyspeakingpodcast.or ... ology.html

Oh, and do you want me to pull up studies for non-"American"s, which I don't know why that means upper-class white males to you because America is diverse in population, but I could if you wanted me to.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

18 Aug 2012, 11:58 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQPnmozehyY[/youtube]


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 Aug 2012, 4:09 am

deltafunction wrote:
Let alone that quote you used doesn't have any factual evidence against evolutionary psychology in the first place...

did you miss the part where I said, 'just for fun, a rant,' after posting SIX other links? Did you read ANY of those links, or just the 'fun' rant that I posted?
Quote:
Feminists usually don't like evolutionary psychology theories, okay, I get why, it doesn't really paint women in a powerful light.

Dude, no. It's because evopsych is not science, but it's claimed as science by lots of non scientists who use it to affirm their patriarchal world-veiws.

Quote:
But it's not that the psychologists are trying to do that, they are just trying to explain and observe human behaviour, just like with any other animals. I actually liked how the comments on this link explained that http://www.rationallyspeakingpodcast.or ... ology.html

Did you listen to more than the first 10 minutes? FFS. Stuff that can be universally applied to all animals is NOT 'evolutionary psychology,' as Pigliucci clearly explains.

Quote:
Oh, and do you want me to pull up studies for non-"American"s, which I don't know why that means upper-class white males to you because America is diverse in population, but I could if you wanted me to.

Find me a study that includes non-westerners, who reside in non-western countries, and who *weren't* pre-selected to agree with western values. Ideally, find me a study or two that compares multiple cultures in multiple countries, with people in their native settings, and does not use leading questions.

In other words, start looking at anthropology (which, like sociology and psychology, was pretty unscientific a few decades ago but has come a long way and is no longer completely bullshit, though they all still have some pretty wishy-washy, airy-fairy holdouts).



CaptainTrips222
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,100

22 Nov 2012, 9:21 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
CaptainTrips222 wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:

many women apparently prefer more muscular hardbodied men for the short-term events, which is the reverse of wanting a more "physically fit" man for the long term.


:!:

So THAT'S why they always ask for 20 bucks when I'm done. I'd better get myself checked.

hahaha i doubt that. it's not like non-muscular, non-hardbodied men are rejected en masse (god knows i've mostly had one night stands with non-muscular men), but men with a certain physique apparently are more likely to be successful with women who want something short term.


LOL... I have no recollection of posting this, but damn.



steviewonderau
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 161

22 Nov 2012, 9:31 pm

Nice guys always finish last. Nice guy can also be seen as being weak, pushover who can easily be taken advantage of by others. Females do not want a nice guy they want a strong, dominant male.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

22 Nov 2012, 11:30 pm

:roll:



Ewags
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 71

22 Nov 2012, 11:52 pm

AutisticMalcontent wrote:
Well I'm going to cite off a cliche' that everyone is familiar with- "Nice guys finish last".


I used to use that as a cop out because I lacked the confidence to assert myself and share my feelings around peers It is asking way too much of a partner to get by on only nice, there are many other dimensions of a person to consider, including: ethics, physical appearance, socio-economic status, compatibility, personality. In fact nice is just not a word I even care to be described as, 100 years ago nice was an insult.



noxnocturne
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,693
Location: Harassing Muggles

23 Nov 2012, 12:18 am

I've already had my share of jerks, believe me; a nice guy would be a pleasant change.
To tell you the truth, I find guys who are into computers and Magic:The Gathering and all that to be a lot hotter than athletes. No lie.



CaptainTrips222
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,100

23 Nov 2012, 2:24 am

steviewonderau wrote:
Nice guys always finish last. Nice guy can also be seen as being weak, pushover who can easily be taken advantage of by others. Females do not want a nice guy they want a strong, dominant male.


A guy can be strong and capable and still be nice, so I don't agree there. Now I DO agree he'll often be perceived as weak, and people will try to take advantage of that, so he always has to be willing to assert himself and show his mental strenght. As for women, as long as the guy is normal and confident, nice isn't a problem as long as he can be dominant at times.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

23 Nov 2012, 4:58 am

i think this thread has had enough misogyny and flame wars that it should finally be locked. CaptainTrips222 made a good neutral final point to end the thread on.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html