Is confidence really what most women want?
I hate google
ok, so I don't trust anything about myself, except my so-called
intelligence. So after a lot of thought and a bit of observation, I finally
came to the conclusion that what most women really want, is not money, not
just status (you can be CEO but if you're a shy geeky CEO...), or looks, but
*confidence*. And I think I'm right about that. Lots of people here seem to
think the same.
But now, I'm thinking that maybe this conclusion may just be another
consequence of my (our) lack of self-esteem. Because, what is the thing that
I lack most, as a man?
-> not looks, not really money (for now), not intelligence...
-> it's CONFIDENCE.
If I was ugly, I would probably say that what women want is beauty. If I
was poor, I'd probably say that what women want is money. But as I'm not
ugly, not stupid and not poor, I say that what women want is what I don't
have, i.e. confidence.
So I don't think, after all, that this conclusion comes from
observation. I think that actually it comes from my lack of self-esteem
itself. More generally, I think I would always say that "what women want
is... the contrary of who I am". As I don't have approached many women in my
life, I can't say that I've "observed" them so much. But I have observed
myself a lot, and my theory [coming from self-observation] is that there's
no need to approach women, because what they want is precisely the contrary
of who I am.
If I could really observe women's reactions, I would probably realize
that women want lots of different things. Some want a cute butt, some want a
perfect face, some want a rich guy, some want a nice guy, some want a very
confident guy, some want a creative guy, some want a shy guy, some want a
funny guy...
I even think that if I could get rid of this "most women want
confidence" theory, I would become more... confident around women!! I would
think that maybe this one will like my humor, maybe this one will like my
intelligence, maybe this one will like my weird ideas about things...
I don't want to sound too positive (this is a.s.s.), but I really think
that sometimes we make theories to justify the fact that we can't win. Then
we think that the problem is in the world (who despises us (shy guys, ugly
guys...)), while in fact it's in our head : we think the world won't like
shy guys because we don't like ourselves. If we liked ourselves, if we could
accept that it's ok to be not-so-confident, that it's ok to be shy, then I
think it would be easier to say hi to new people. Who may like us. For our
other qualities...
--
F.C.
kitznegari thinks it has wings
can be very attractive... or it can be offputting, depending on who it is and
how they are. i'm all excited about this guy that i know that is a good bit
shyer than most right now... but he likes himself, and that is an important
thing. he walked right up to me and sold himself well, and now i'm waiting for
a chance to ask him out.
i've been around some very outgoing people that were wonderful... and others
that were atrocious and obnoxious. same with quiet, less brave folks. people
don't change much between the classes and the socially challengedness.
what attracts each woman is different... so to say that none of them want money
or looks or confidence is a lie... but to say that they all do is just the same
sort of damaging reputation that is better avoided. i could go around
believing that all men want is big tits and be bitter about it... or i can
believe what is obviously very, very true and know that there is a man to love
every woman out there, and vice versa...
and that you're never going to find them by filling the space around you with
bitterness.
- k i t z -
i am the calm center of the universe. shut up or i'll kill you.
http://spinning_plates.tripod.com
I hate google
>
hi Kitz,
> but seriously... being a woman, and having TALKED to other women...
> confidence can be very attractive... or it can be offputting,
> depending on who it is and how they are. i'm all excited about this
> guy that i know that is a good bit shyer than most right now... but
> he likes himself, and that is an important thing.
yeah. I think this is the point : shyness is not the main problem : if
you're shy and you like yourself, you can show your good qualities when
there's an opportunity (which is not often, but...). If you don't like
yourself (even if you're not shy), you'll never manage to sell yourself
because you wouldn't even buy the product yourself...!
> he walked right up
> to me and sold himself well, and now i'm waiting for a chance to ask
> him out.
and do you think that will happen soon? ;-) Keep us updated!
> [...]
> but to say that they
> all do is just the same sort of damaging reputation that is better
> avoided. i could go around believing that all men want is big tits
> and be bitter about it...
I like small tits ;-)
> or i can believe what is obviously very,
> very true and know that there is a man to love every woman out there,
> and vice versa...
maybe. But there are also all these people looking for perfection...
> and that you're never going to find them by filling the space around
> you with bitterness.
these are wise words.
--
F.C.
EricCadmyusAAAAA
>intelligence. So after a lot of thought and a bit of observation, I finally
>came to the conclusion that what most women really want, is not money, not
>just status (you can be CEO but if you're a shy geeky CEO...), or looks, but
>*confidence*. And I think I'm right about that. Lots of people here seem to
>think the same.
>
> But now, I'm thinking that maybe this conclusion may just be another
>consequence of my (our) lack of self-esteem. Because, what is the thing that
>I lack most, as a man?
>
> -> not looks, not really money (for now), not intelligence...
>
> -> it's CONFIDENCE.
You need to stop lying to yourself. Women want a rich, good looking man and
that's it. The confidence thing is just what they say to pretend to be humble
and not what they do. In women's personal ads they mention money 10x times more
often than men's ads.
If you have money and you aren't attracting women then maybe you are ugly
because money gets most average looking men laid in a heartbeat. Perhaps you
are hunting for beauty queens instead of average girls? Beauty queens tend to
want rich, good looking men while the average looking women will settle for an
average looking rich man.
Listen to this member darkfalz, there are words of wisdom in his google
backlog. When women say that they want confident men what they really mean is
they want a man who has something to be confident about: money and looks
I hate google
> > ok, so I don't trust anything about myself, except my so-called
> > intelligence. So after a lot of thought and a bit of observation, I
> > finally came to the conclusion that what most women really want, is
> > not money, not just status (you can be CEO but if you're a shy
> > geeky CEO...), or looks, but *confidence*. And I think I'm right
> > about that. Lots of people here seem to think the same.
> >
> > But now, I'm thinking that maybe this conclusion may just be
> > another consequence of my (our) lack of self-esteem. Because, what
> > is the thing that I lack most, as a man?
> >
> > -> not looks, not really money (for now), not intelligence...
> >
> > -> it's CONFIDENCE.
>
> You need to stop lying to yourself. Women want a rich, good looking
> man and that's it. The confidence thing is just what they say to
> pretend to be humble and not what they do. In women's personal ads
> they mention money 10x times more often than men's ads.
>
> If you have money and you aren't attracting women then maybe you
> are ugly because money gets most average looking men laid in a
> heartbeat.
I said I have money... "for now", because it's still my parents'
money... So not quite an attractive kind of money, at 26, for a girl...!
> Perhaps you are hunting for beauty queens instead of
> average girls?
I don't know. I was in love with a beauty queen, and one day the friends
I had back then saw her. They said she was average. Now actually the real
reason why I don't attract girls is that I stay at home 5 days a week, and
when I see a girl, I tend to run away.
> Beauty queens tend to want rich, good looking men
> while the average looking women will settle for an average looking
> rich man.
>
> Listen to this member darkfalz,
lol! If I want to find another reason to kill myself, then yeah, I'll
check out Darfalz' messages!
> there are words of wisdom in his
> google backlog.
I hate google. Because it steals our privacy without our consent.
> When women say that they want confident men what they
> really mean is they want a man who has something to be confident
> about: money and looks
Other things to be confident about : intelligence, having a passion,
humor, being a good person, being sensitive, being caring and affectionate,
being open-minded, being knowledgeable about things, being able to fix her
computer in a minute, having beautiful hands, having nice clothes... Just
because women don't come knocking at your door to bed you doesn't mean that
every single woman in the world hates your guts and could never be attracted
to someone like you. You surely have qualities, and qualities *are*
attractive, by definition. But you need to be conscious that you have these
good qualities. If you love yourself, people will love you, they say. I
think it's true. Tough work, long road, sure, but still, it's true.
--
F.C.
ะชื
wrote:
i think that it's not so much an air of confidence (which can look
like arrogance or foolish pride) as a sense that the prospect looks
capable of being leaned upon. More than wanting a rich guy with
material power, they want someone who isn't going to lean on them - a
self-assured person who looks capable of handling life's needs without
imposing. You don't want to appear in a person's life as a source of
new problems - "I'm sad and lonely. My life sucks. What should we do?"
- Äž
franco
>...I even think that if I could get rid of this "most women want
>confidence" theory, I would become more... confident around women!! I would
>think that maybe this one will like my humor, maybe this one will like my
>intelligence, maybe this one will like my weird ideas about things...
You seem like a smart guy who talks about things that are quite relevant. IMO,
self-esteem and self-confidence go hand in hand. More often than not, a good
and stable self-esteem would induce a strong self-confidence (in one skill or
another).
I don't know if women appreciate confidence in a man (I think they do) but
that's not imo the reason why self-confident men are more successful with women
(not only because women find them more appealing), there is more: Confident men
are not afraid to fail, they're not afraid to try again and again and therefore
it becomes just a matter of numbers! It's quite possible that the
self-confident man has the same potential opportunity (same odds) to seduce
women as the shy guy (say 1 in 10), but the shy guy doesn't go for it while the
confident man does. Another thing: you become better at something the more you
practice it. Confident men by trying to approiach women are at the same time
gaining skills (seduction, conversational etc.)
You see, no matter how you think of it, it's quite important to LOVE YOURSELF.
Or at least to try to...
franco
>what attracts each woman is different... so to say that none of them want
money
>or looks or confidence is a lie... but to say that they all do is just the
same
>sort of damaging reputation that is better avoided.
Women/men prefer to have friends/partners who have positive and valuable
qualities, the more the better. But there are individual tastes and preferences
of course (like what you've said above).
Insert Pseudonym Here
news:407f3e1d$0$22864$626a...@news.free.fr:
> ok, so I don't trust anything about myself, except my so-called
> intelligence. So after a lot of thought and a bit of observation, I
> finally came to the conclusion that what most women really want, is
> not money, not just status (you can be CEO but if you're a shy geeky
> CEO...), or looks, but *confidence*. And I think I'm right about that.
> Lots of people here seem to think the same.
ITYM *chocolate*. HTH!
kitznegari thinks it has wings
>> to me and sold himself well, and now i'm waiting for a chance to ask
>> him out.
>
> and do you think that will happen soon? ;-) Keep us updated!
i did it today :)
I hate google
> X-No-Archive: yes I hate google's post:
>
> > > there are words of wisdom in his
> > > google backlog.
> > I hate google. Because it steals our privacy without our consent.
>
1) even for a guy who has used computers for years, it's not easy to put the
X-No archive thing automatically in all headers. I don't even know if it
really works. + anyway, with people answering to you, and quoting you, you
get archived anyway.
2) do you really think that all the new people posting to Usenet are aware
that what they post will be archived forever, with a possibility for anyone
in the world to search for their name or for keywords about them (when I
started posting to Usenet I used my real name) ? Obviously not. So that's
among the things I call "without our consent".
And maybe I should especially blame the people who started it (AFAIK), i.e.
DejaNews...
--
F.C.
I hate google
> > > to me and sold himself well, and now i'm waiting for a chance to
> > > ask him out.
> >
> > and do you think that will happen soon? ;-) Keep us updated!
>
> i did it today :)
great!
--
F.C.
Trance909
>we think that the problem is in the world (who despises us (shy guys, ugly
>guys...)), while in fact it's in our head : we think the world won't like
>shy guys because we don't like ourselves.
I don't buy it. Most women may not openly despise a shy guy, but they won't
seek him out or find themselves attracted to him too often. The degree to which
I like myself isn't going to make a lick of difference, IMO. Liking myself more
doesn't avoid the drying up of conversations, nor does it make me more dynamic
and outgoing.
Trance909
>
How do I know? Look around. And also, personal experience.
> dryings up of conversation are good. That's when you can start the more
>sensual things... And some girls don't like to talk at all...
Women want to be entertained...no, many of them *need* to be entertained. I can
have a woman attracted to me initially, simply via looks, but I can only keep
up the charade so long, if I can get it off the ground to begin with.
Trance909
>seduce girls in the Miami club scene (highly competitive, I guess, as you
>explained) ?
No, actually I don't. I haven't been finding those women that attractive,
anyway.
>Are you really able to approach
>so many girls? And, on a side note, what kind of girls are you attracted to?
>(IME, I know that it explains a lot of rejections for me : being only
>attracted to the most popular and aloof girls, girls who are nearly perfect
It's hard to explain what kind of woman I'm attracted to. I don't see such
women very often. I like fit women, but that's not all of it...I like
intelligent women, but that's not all of it, either.
Gray Loser
> I don't want to sound too positive (this is a.s.s.), but I really think
> that sometimes we make theories to justify the fact that we can't win. Then
> we think that the problem is in the world (who despises us (shy guys, ugly
> guys...)), while in fact it's in our head
Yup, I've noticed this process in myself: forming a theory (e.g., 'I'm
hopeless at social interaction') based on a few social 'failures', and
then using this theory to 'guide' me in future social interactions.
we think the world won't like
> shy guys because we don't like ourselves. If we liked ourselves, if we could
> accept that it's ok to be not-so-confident, that it's ok to be shy, then I
> think it would be easier to say hi to new people. Who may like us. For our
> other qualities...
The trouble is that when you're in your late 20's and haven't so much
as touched a member of the opposite sex (in a non-casual way), you
begin to see 'shyness' (or social inpetitude, or whatever you want to
call it) as a serious handicap.
Gray Loser
> but seriously... being a woman, and having TALKED to other women... confidence
> can be very attractive... or it can be offputting, depending on who it is and
> how they are.
You've practically played into Darkfalz' hands, there.
kitznegari thinks it has wings
*shrug*
if he can't handle the truth he needs to go find a cliff and go diving.
F.r.a.n.k.
She didn't say : "or it can be offputting, depending on how handsome he
is". She said : "depending on who it is and how they are"
--
F.C.
F.r.a.n.k.
> "I hate google" <gu...@whos.back> wrote in message
> >
> > shy guys because we don't like ourselves. If we liked ourselves, if
> > we could accept that it's ok to be not-so-confident, that it's ok
> > to be shy, then I think it would be easier to say hi to new people.
> > Who may like us. For our other qualities...
>
> The trouble is that when you're in your late 20's and haven't so much
> as touched a member of the opposite sex (in a non-casual way), you
> begin to see 'shyness' (or social inpetitude, or whatever you want to
> call it) as a serious handicap.
Well unfortunately it is a handicap. But there are 2 sides :
a) being unable to talk to people (girls)
b) being convinced that you're uninteresting (because you never go out,
because you're shy...)
I was just addressing the b) problem. But I also added that working on
b) can improve a) , because if you feel more interesting and more
attractive, it could make it easier to approach strangers (girls).
Michaela
But if you like yourself, you will feel more comfortable
with yourself and you will behave more confidently.
And she will notice *that*.
- Michaela
Michaela
I think the word confidence can be misleading.
Hell, if you think about it long enough any
word can be misleading.
- Michaela
(kitznegari thinks it has wings) wrote
[snip: brevity only]
Michaela
If you love yourself, people will love you, they say. I
> think it's true.
As long as loving yourself doesn't go over the edge to the
side of arrogance. But that also depends on the view the
other person takes. But I think Kitz already said that.
Reflections.
- Michaela
Gray Loser
I'm aware of that, but DF is certain to twist the words around (in
this case, with some justification) to promote his 'agenda'.
Mark Green
Well, kinda. The problem is that while it's true that women find
confidence attractive, they also want the confidence to be JUSTIFIED.
In other words, they don't want the man just to be confident that he's
hot, they want him to actually BE hot as well, or at least reasonably
so (which is why a dirty homeless dude who was nonetheless confident
would still get turned down).
The problem is, however, that for most people "confidence" depends on
risk and unknowns. You would not say that you are "confident" that a
heavy object that you drop, would fall; you would say it was a
certainty. When you say you are "confident" that it will not rain
tomorrow, you are effectively saying that although you believe that it
certainly will not, you acknowledge that your belief still may not be
right.
So asking for "justified confidence" is kinda contadictory, because in
most cases if something is clear and certainly justified, people
wouldn't call it "confidence".
The Babaloughesian
"Mark Green" <mark....@reading.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:88139ee2.0404...@posting.google.com...
> gray_...@hotmail.com (Gray Loser) wrote in message
news:<b1b9d578.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > kitzn...@aol.com (kitznegari thinks it has wings) wrote in message
news:<20040415222404...@mb-m03.aol.com>...
> > > but seriously... being a woman, and having TALKED to other women...
confidence
> > > can be very attractive... or it can be offputting, depending on who it
is and
> > > how they are.
> >
> > You've practically played into Darkfalz' hands, there.
>
> Well, kinda. The problem is that while it's true that women find
> confidence attractive, they also want the confidence to be JUSTIFIED.
> In other words, they don't want the man just to be confident that he's
> hot, they want him to actually BE hot as well, or at least reasonably
> so (which is why a dirty homeless dude who was nonetheless confident
> would still get turned down).
>
> The problem is, however, that for most people "confidence" depends on
> risk and unknowns. You would not say that you are "confident" that a
> heavy object that you drop, would fall; you would say it was a
> certainty.
I would probably never say that anything is a certainty.
Gray Loser
> gray_...@hotmail.com (Gray Loser) wrote in message news:<b1b9d578.04041...@posting.google.com>...
> > kitzn...@aol.com (kitznegari thinks it has wings) wrote in message news:<20040415222404...@mb-m03.aol.com>...
> > > but seriously... being a woman, and having TALKED to other women... confidence
> > > can be very attractive... or it can be offputting, depending on who it is and
> > > how they are.
> >
> > You've practically played into Darkfalz' hands, there.
>
> Well, kinda. The problem is that while it's true that women find
> confidence attractive, they also want the confidence to be JUSTIFIED.
> In other words, they don't want the man just to be confident that he's
> hot, they want him to actually BE hot as well, or at least reasonably
> so (which is why a dirty homeless dude who was nonetheless confident
> would still get turned down).
>
> The problem is, however, that for most people "confidence" depends on
> risk and unknowns. You would not say that you are "confident" that a
> heavy object that you drop, would fall; you would say it was a
> certainty. When you say you are "confident" that it will not rain
> tomorrow, you are effectively saying that although you believe that it
> certainly will not, you acknowledge that your belief still may not be
> right.
I think that 'confidence' means something slightly different than its
normal usage when it's part of the concept of 'self-confidence.' As
you point out, being confident in X means, roughly, that you believe
that X will happen, and see no reason why it should not, but
acknowlege that the world is an uncertain place, and that unforeseen
factors may intervene.
*Self*-confidence means something slightly different. After all, a
straight substitution of X = 'self' makes no sense ("confidence that
self will happen"?), so you have to come up with a plausible
definition of what people actually mean when they say self-confidence.
One way of looking at it is statistically: self-confidence translates
into a belief in your ability to accomplish a class of tasks with a
reasonable expectation of success. Here, "reasonable" is of course
domain-specific, since not all tasks are alike in difficulty or the
effort they require. Thus, a self-confident Go player can expect to
beat an inferior player 80% of the time, but it's foolish to expect
the same success rate when applying for a highly competitive job.
Nonethless, a self-confident applicant will still expect to obtain
such a job after applying to, say, 100 openings. In this case, success
is measured across a time series, rather than on a case-by-case basis.
Going back to the original context, when women say they want a
self-confident man, what they really want is a man who has reasonably
high expectations of success in a certain 'manly' class of tasks. They
also want these expectations to be "justified" or "realistic" -- that
is, to be within a certain margin of error from his "real" (perceived)
chances of success.
> So asking for "justified confidence" is kinda contadictory, because in
> most cases if something is clear and certainly justified, people
> wouldn't call it "confidence".
If look at it from a statistical point of view, the contradiction goes
away. What women are looking for isn't absolute certainty, just a
realistic (or perhaps somewhat over-optimistic) expectation of
success.
BDB
> I think that 'confidence' means something slightly different than its
> normal usage when it's part of the concept of 'self-confidence.' As
> you point out, being confident in X means, roughly, that you believe
> that X will happen, and see no reason why it should not, but
> acknowlege that the world is an uncertain place, and that unforeseen
> factors may intervene.
>
> *Self*-confidence means something slightly different. After all, a
> straight substitution of X = 'self' makes no sense ("confidence that
> self will happen"?), so you have to come up with a plausible
> definition of what people actually mean when they say self-confidence.
>
> One way of looking at it is statistically: self-confidence translates
> into a belief in your ability to accomplish a class of tasks with a
> reasonable expectation of success. Here, "reasonable" is of course
No actually I agree with your "straight substitution". Self-confidence
isn't about confidence in succeeding. It's about confidence in yourself,
no matter what the outcome of a specific event. It truely is confidence
in "self". Your ability to deal regardless of what happens in the
outside world. Self-confident guys, for example, will hit on 20 chicks,
failing each time, to finally succeed. They aren't confident in their
ability to succeed, they are confident in their ability to not be
phased by failure.
Marlow
> Well, kinda. The problem is that while it's true that women find
> confidence attractive, they also want the confidence to be JUSTIFIED.
Heh. Some things never change...
What makes YOU the expert on what women want anyway? Is this
assertion grounded on any actual EXPERIENCES in the real world? (yes,
this is a rhetorical question).
Marlow
ci+
news:88139ee2.0404...@posting.google.com:
> gray_...@hotmail.com (Gray Loser) wrote in message
> news:<b1b9d578.04041...@posting.google.com>...
>> kitzn...@aol.com (kitznegari thinks it has wings) wrote in message
>> news:<20040415222404...@mb-m03.aol.com>...
>> > but seriously... being a woman, and having TALKED to other women...
>> > confidence can be very attractive... or it can be offputting,
>> > depending on who it is and how they are.
>>
>> You've practically played into Darkfalz' hands, there.
>
> Well, kinda. The problem is that while it's true that women find
> confidence attractive, they also want the confidence to be JUSTIFIED.
i'ts my impression that often fake confidence would suffice. women are as
gullible as men are.
> In other words, they don't want the man just to be confident that he's
> hot, they want him to actually BE hot as well, or at least reasonably
> so (which is why a dirty homeless dude who was nonetheless confident
> would still get turned down).
an ugly guy with money can get SOME woman.
> The problem is, however, that for most people "confidence" depends on
> risk and unknowns. You would not say that you are "confident" that a
> heavy object that you drop, would fall; you would say it was a
> certainty. When you say you are "confident" that it will not rain
> tomorrow, you are effectively saying that although you believe that it
> certainly will not, you acknowledge that your belief still may not be
> right.
>
> So asking for "justified confidence" is kinda contadictory, because in
> most cases if something is clear and certainly justified, people
> wouldn't call it "confidence".
hmm.. i think the social definition of confidence (or the definition of
social confidence) has diverged form the definition you describe above.
Social "confidence" does not predict anything. Social confidence is just
an air.
Mark Green
No, it's grounded on common sense.
(Pray tell, what actual experience *would* actually have grounded this
assertion? I can't think of any finite set of experiences that would
do..)
The common sense is as follows. Confidence is generally thought of as
a positive thing. However, in cases where it is clearly inappropriate
confidence can become delusion, which is generally thought of as a
negative thing. Confidence becomes delusion when it is applied in
cases where it clearly isn't appropriate. For example, you may be
confident that it will rain tomorrow - that would be fine, as it
indeed may. You may be confident that it will snow tomorrow - that
would be a tad bizarre in England in April. You may be confident that
it will rain hundred-dollar bills tomorrow - that's a delusion.
Furthermore, having background knowledge about things tightens the
precision of the confidence/delusion check. If you are confident that
you can complete a particular project in a short space of time, then
someone else unfamiliar with the situation may agree and consider you
confident, but a third person with more knowledge about that type of
project may consider you deluded. Note that he still might be
*incorrect* about that, but that doesn't matter: what's important is
that it's harder to get him to consider you confident, than it is for
someone who doesn't have that knowledge. (We can postulate that if
you were talking to an omniscient God, he would never consider you
"confident", since he can identify everything you say as either a
certainty or a delusion.. but, enough cod philosophy..)
When you are confident about dealing with women, the unknown factor
(ie, the one that makes it reasonable to "be confident" as opposed to
knowing for certain) is that you don't yet know about the women you'll
be dealing with. However, when a particular woman interacts with you,
she has absolute knowledge about the woman you dealing with (because,
uh, it's herself), and she also knows about the confidence you're
projecting (because - based on the earlier discussion with Allen - if
you aren't projecting it well enough for her to know about it, it
doesn't count for attraction), so she is going to make a pretty darn
precise judgment on whether you're confident or delusional. If she
deems you confident, she may be attracted. If she deems you
delusional, she certainly won't be.
So they're attracted to confidence, but not delusion. However, since
you don't know in advance how she's going to check for
confidence/delusion all you can do is to try and make sure your
confidence is justified as far as possible.
Now I know the two negative spins people put on this, namely that a)
confidence is entirely irrelevant and the justifying factors are all
that matters (not necessarily true), or that b) if you have the
justifying factors then confidence is automatic (a lot of people's
jobs would be a lot easier if human brains automatically worked
conclusions from all propositions they knew, but sadly, it ain't
so...)
F.r.a.n.k.
> > on risk and unknowns. You would not say that you are "confident"
> > that a heavy object that you drop, would fall; you would say it was
> > a certainty.
>
> I would probably never say that anything is a certainty.
Yeah. Probably.
F.r.a.n.k.
Hey, Marlow! The great author of Marlow's "low-risk approach to dating"
(or something), right?
The Babaloughesian
"F.r.a.n.k." <ve...@vidi.vici> wrote in message
Exactly. It wouldn't make sense for me to say that I would certainly never
say that anything is a certainty, would it?
F.r.a.n.k.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. :-)
Marlow
> pdfj...@yahoo.com (Marlow) wrote in message news:<b79c52e4.04042...@posting.google.com>...
> > mark....@reading.ac.uk (Mark Green) wrote in message news:<88139ee2.0404...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > Well, kinda. The problem is that while it's true that women find
> > > confidence attractive, they also want the confidence to be JUSTIFIED.
> >
> > Heh. Some things never change...
> >
> > What makes YOU the expert on what women want anyway? Is this
> > assertion grounded on any actual EXPERIENCES in the real world? (yes,
> > this is a rhetorical question).
>
> No, it's grounded on common sense.
>
> (Pray tell, what actual experience *would* actually have grounded this
> assertion? I can't think of any finite set of experiences that would
> do..)
Hmmm...actually approaching women, studying their actual responses
(not made up ones that you think might happen), and then varying your
behavior and repeating the expirement many times and seeing what
results you get. Of course this wouldn't make you actually able to
*prove* anything (such is the case with science), but it sure would
make you sound a lot less like you were just coming up with wacky
theories and posting them on here for the sake of fruitless
pseudo-logical argument.
<snip tons of fruitless pseudo-logical argument>
> If she
> deems you confident, she may be attracted. If she deems you
> delusional, she certainly won't be.
HEY! What do ya know, a point I actually agree with!
>
> So they're attracted to confidence, but not delusion. However, since
> you don't know in advance how she's going to check for
> confidence/delusion all you can do is to try and make sure your
> confidence is justified as far as possible.
Yep, if you don't know how she's going to check and what behaviors you
could project to mimic social confidence and you're too lazy to find
out, then you're right, all you can do is somehow try to make sure
your confidence is justified as far as possible.
Marlow
Marlow
> Hey, Marlow! The great author of Marlow's "low-risk approach to dating"
> (or something), right?
That's me!
Marlow
Mark Green
> > > > confidence attractive, they also want the confidence to be JUSTIFIED.
> > > Heh. Some things never change...
> > > What makes YOU the expert on what women want anyway? Is this
> > > assertion grounded on any actual EXPERIENCES in the real world? (yes,
> > > this is a rhetorical question).
> > No, it's grounded on common sense.
> > (Pray tell, what actual experience *would* actually have grounded this
> > assertion? I can't think of any finite set of experiences that would
> > do..)
> Hmmm...actually approaching women, studying their actual responses
> (not made up ones that you think might happen), and then varying your
> behavior and repeating the expirement many times and seeing what
> results you get. Of course this wouldn't make you actually able to
> *prove* anything (such is the case with science), but it sure would
> make you sound a lot less like you were just coming up with wacky
> theories and posting them on here for the sake of fruitless
> pseudo-logical argument.
I don't really see how it would have given you much experience,
either. Even if you got a woman to accept you, you don't know *why*
she's accepted you. It *might* be because of the changes you've made
but it might not. (Assuming you aren't just asking the same woman
over and over again, which would be kinda daft.)
> > So they're attracted to confidence, but not delusion. However, since
> > you don't know in advance how she's going to check for
> > confidence/delusion all you can do is to try and make sure your
> > confidence is justified as far as possible.
> Yep, if you don't know how she's going to check and what behaviors you
> could project to mimic social confidence and you're too lazy to find
> out, then you're right, all you can do is somehow try to make sure
> your confidence is justified as far as possible.
"You're too lazy to find out?" How would finding out help? You'd
have to act on the knowledge as well, and most likely the action you'd
find out you had to take, would be the same one that would have
justified your confidence in the first place.
Marlow
> > Hmmm...actually approaching women, studying their actual responses
> > (not made up ones that you think might happen), and then varying your
> > behavior and repeating the expirement many times and seeing what
> > results you get. Of course this wouldn't make you actually able to
> > *prove* anything (such is the case with science), but it sure would
> > make you sound a lot less like you were just coming up with wacky
> > theories and posting them on here for the sake of fruitless
> > pseudo-logical argument.
>
> I don't really see how it would have given you much experience,
> either. Even if you got a woman to accept you, you don't know *why*
> she's accepted you. It *might* be because of the changes you've made
> but it might not. (Assuming you aren't just asking the same woman
> over and over again, which would be kinda daft.)
Wow, so I guess there's really nothing anyone can do. Sitting in
front of a computer screen and theorizing about things that might
happen is just as good as actually going out into the real world and
getting real responses. There's absolutely no differance between the
two in terms of usefulness. I see your point.
>
> > > So they're attracted to confidence, but not delusion. However, since
> > > you don't know in advance how she's going to check for
> > > confidence/delusion all you can do is to try and make sure your
> > > confidence is justified as far as possible.
> > Yep, if you don't know how she's going to check and what behaviors you
> > could project to mimic social confidence and you're too lazy to find
> > out, then you're right, all you can do is somehow try to make sure
> > your confidence is justified as far as possible.
>
> "You're too lazy to find out?" How would finding out help? You'd
> have to act on the knowledge as well, and most likely the action you'd
> find out you had to take, would be the same one that would have
> justified your confidence in the first place.
Wow, so if you're not born with it there's nothing anyone can do.
Finding out something about it would be completely useless. I see
your point.
Marlow
Mark Green
> > > Hmmm...actually approaching women, studying their actual responses
> > > (not made up ones that you think might happen), and then varying your
> > > behavior and repeating the expirement many times and seeing what
> > > results you get. Of course this wouldn't make you actually able to
> > > *prove* anything (such is the case with science), but it sure would
> > > make you sound a lot less like you were just coming up with wacky
> > > theories and posting them on here for the sake of fruitless
> > > pseudo-logical argument.
> > I don't really see how it would have given you much experience,
> > either. Even if you got a woman to accept you, you don't know *why*
> > she's accepted you. It *might* be because of the changes you've made
> > but it might not. (Assuming you aren't just asking the same woman
> > over and over again, which would be kinda daft.)
> Wow, so I guess there's really nothing anyone can do. Sitting in
> front of a computer screen and theorizing about things that might
> happen is just as good as actually going out into the real world and
> getting real responses. There's absolutely no differance between the
> two in terms of usefulness. I see your point.
I didn't claim that. I simply said that claims of this kind can't
be supported purely by experience.
> > > > So they're attracted to confidence, but not delusion. However, since
> > > > you don't know in advance how she's going to check for
> > > > confidence/delusion all you can do is to try and make sure your
> > > > confidence is justified as far as possible.
> > > Yep, if you don't know how she's going to check and what behaviors you
> > > could project to mimic social confidence and you're too lazy to find
> > > out, then you're right, all you can do is somehow try to make sure
> > > your confidence is justified as far as possible.
> > "You're too lazy to find out?" How would finding out help? You'd
> > have to act on the knowledge as well, and most likely the action you'd
> > find out you had to take, would be the same one that would have
> > justified your confidence in the first place.
> Wow, so if you're not born with it there's nothing anyone can do.
> Finding out something about it would be completely useless. I see
> your point.
I didn't claim that. I never said that the justified or otherwise
of confidence was unchangeable.
Please quit with the straw men signoffs.
Marlow
> > Wow, so I guess there's really nothing anyone can do. Sitting in
> > front of a computer screen and theorizing about things that might
> > happen is just as good as actually going out into the real world and
> > getting real responses. There's absolutely no differance between the
> > two in terms of usefulness. I see your point.
>
> I didn't claim that. I simply said that claims of this kind can't
> be supported purely by experience.
Then how can they be supported?
>
> > > > > So they're attracted to confidence, but not delusion. However, since
> > > > > you don't know in advance how she's going to check for
> > > > > confidence/delusion all you can do is to try and make sure your
> > > > > confidence is justified as far as possible.
> > > > Yep, if you don't know how she's going to check and what behaviors you
> > > > could project to mimic social confidence and you're too lazy to find
> > > > out, then you're right, all you can do is somehow try to make sure
> > > > your confidence is justified as far as possible.
> > > "You're too lazy to find out?" How would finding out help? You'd
> > > have to act on the knowledge as well, and most likely the action you'd
> > > find out you had to take, would be the same one that would have
> > > justified your confidence in the first place.
> > Wow, so if you're not born with it there's nothing anyone can do.
> > Finding out something about it would be completely useless. I see
> > your point.
>
> I didn't claim that. I never said that the justified or otherwise
> of confidence was unchangeable.
> Please quit with the straw men signoffs.
I give what I get. My whole point is that after many years, you're
still here doing the same straw man pseudo-logical arguing and by your
tone I assume you're getting the same results. I just wonder how many
more years you're willing to commit to this strategy before you try
something differant.
Marlow
Mark Green
> > > Wow, so I guess there's really nothing anyone can do. Sitting in
> > > front of a computer screen and theorizing about things that might
> > > happen is just as good as actually going out into the real world and
> > > getting real responses. There's absolutely no differance between the
> > > two in terms of usefulness. I see your point.
> > I didn't claim that. I simply said that claims of this kind can't
> > be supported purely by experience.
> Then how can they be supported?
They would need to be supported by a mix of your own experience,
others' experience, and theory. Your own experience can give you
absolutely trustworthy results, but observed results on their own
won't tell you *why* something happened. You need others' experience
because you, and your personal traits, are otherwise a big ol' static
constant that messes up the sample. And you need theory to pull it
all together.
Now, my belief that only justified confidence is attractive is
largely drawn from the fact that all the people I've ever known who
have repeated the claim that confidence was attractive, and who have
actually attracted themselves, have also had traits other than
confidence that are generally considered attractive. If they speak
only from their own experience there is no way for them to know if
it's their confidence or their other traits that worked for them. If
I saw an badly-dressed ugly guy with no money who had attracted, and
he said he had done so because of confidence, I would believe it more
than I do. But I never have, so I don't.
> > > > > could project to mimic social confidence and you're too lazy to find
> > > > > out, then you're right, all you can do is somehow try to make sure
> > > > > your confidence is justified as far as possible.
> > > > "You're too lazy to find out?" How would finding out help? You'd
> > > > have to act on the knowledge as well, and most likely the action you'd
> > > > find out you had to take, would be the same one that would have
> > > > justified your confidence in the first place.
> > > Wow, so if you're not born with it there's nothing anyone can do.
> > > Finding out something about it would be completely useless. I see
> > > your point.
> > I didn't claim that. I never said that the justified or otherwise
> > of confidence was unchangeable.
> > Please quit with the straw men signoffs.
> I give what I get. My whole point is that after many years, you're
> still here doing the same straw man pseudo-logical arguing and by your
> tone I assume you're getting the same results. I just wonder how many
> more years you're willing to commit to this strategy before you try
> something differant.
As far as I can see, there is nothing different to try. All other
behaviours that have been suggested have turned out to be undefined.
Look above, where you say "find out what to project to mimic social
confidence". I'm sure you know that "find out" encompasses a huge
range of behaviours (compare "find out what it's like outside", "find
out how to cure cancer") so which of the various encompassed
behaviours did you mean by this one?
Marlow
> pdfj...@yahoo.com (Marlow) wrote in message news:<b79c52e4.04042...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Wow, so I guess there's really nothing anyone can do. Sitting in
> > > > front of a computer screen and theorizing about things that might
> > > > happen is just as good as actually going out into the real world and
> > > > getting real responses. There's absolutely no differance between the
> > > > two in terms of usefulness. I see your point.
> > > I didn't claim that. I simply said that claims of this kind can't
> > > be supported purely by experience.
> > Then how can they be supported?
>
> They would need to be supported by a mix of your own experience,
> others' experience, and theory. Your own experience can give you
> absolutely trustworthy results, but observed results on their own
> won't tell you *why* something happened. You need others' experience
> because you, and your personal traits, are otherwise a big ol' static
> constant that messes up the sample. And you need theory to pull it
> all together.
I can agree with the above. At last you admit that one ingredient
you're lacking is actually going out and getting your own experience!
>
> Now, my belief that only justified confidence is attractive is
> largely drawn from the fact that all the people I've ever known who
> have repeated the claim that confidence was attractive, and who have
> actually attracted themselves, have also had traits other than
> confidence that are generally considered attractive. If they speak
> only from their own experience there is no way for them to know if
> it's their confidence or their other traits that worked for them. If
> I saw an badly-dressed ugly guy with no money who had attracted, and
> he said he had done so because of confidence, I would believe it more
> than I do. But I never have, so I don't.
What if you saw two guys who were dressed the same (both average) with
average amounts of money, but one was more sucessful then the other?
> > I give what I get. My whole point is that after many years, you're
> > still here doing the same straw man pseudo-logical arguing and by your
> > tone I assume you're getting the same results. I just wonder how many
> > more years you're willing to commit to this strategy before you try
> > something differant.
>
> As far as I can see, there is nothing different to try. All other
> behaviours that have been suggested have turned out to be undefined.
> Look above, where you say "find out what to project to mimic social
> confidence". I'm sure you know that "find out" encompasses a huge
> range of behaviours (compare "find out what it's like outside", "find
> out how to cure cancer") so which of the various encompassed
> behaviours did you mean by this one?
Well this is the nature of human communication. When I speak to
someone, I generally assume that they will try their best to figure
out what it is that I mean, regardless of whether they agree with it
or not.
Now surely you've had to "find out" something before. Now what ways
could one do this? If it were me, the first thing I'd do is do some
searching on the internet. Lucky for me there is a wealth of
knowledge out there about learning how to attract women. If for some
reason that didn't occur to me, the second route I would take would be
to go to the bookstore or library and see if there were any books that
might help me out there. Lucky for me, again, I would discover that
there are. If that didn't occur to me, I might think to myself that
going out and using trial and error to approach girls might be a good
tactic to "find out" something. Once again I would discover that this
would also yield some positive results in terms of trying to "find
out" something. Of course, an optimal approach might entail aspects
of all three of these, along with some other things that have not
occured to me just yet.
Then again, if I just wanted to play a silly internet game and use
copious amounts of pseudo-logic, I could misunderstand virtually
anything anyone said to me. So in that case trying to "find out"
something would be really undefined, so I might ask the person to
further define it for me. If they did this I could then claim that
whatever explanation they gave me was still too vague and I could
repeat this for, I don't know, how many years have you been at this
game? Is it still fun?
I'm busting your balls a little bit, but I'm genuinely trying to be
constructive. I doubt that all this negative writing you're doing is
helping you in your quest to improve your life (at least that's what
I'm assuming your quest is, correct me if I'm wrong). I doubt you
feel very good after writing this kind of stuff. But I could be wrong
about this, you've given the expirement plenty of time to work. Have
you gotten any positive results from this?
Marlow
SadSadSoul
if that will give me confidence. Here we go low-carb diet.
Mark Green
> > Now, my belief that only justified confidence is attractive is
> > largely drawn from the fact that all the people I've ever known who
> > have repeated the claim that confidence was attractive, and who have
> > actually attracted themselves, have also had traits other than
> > confidence that are generally considered attractive. If they speak
> > only from their own experience there is no way for them to know if
> > it's their confidence or their other traits that worked for them. If
> > I saw an badly-dressed ugly guy with no money who had attracted, and
> > he said he had done so because of confidence, I would believe it more
> > than I do. But I never have, so I don't.
> What if you saw two guys who were dressed the same (both average) with
> average amounts of money, but one was more sucessful then the other?
You didn't actually mention that their looks were the same (only
their dress), but I guess you meant to. In that case you'd have to go
to non-obvious factors. Confidence is not the only non-obvious
factor.
> > > I give what I get. My whole point is that after many years, you're
> > > still here doing the same straw man pseudo-logical arguing and by your
> > > tone I assume you're getting the same results. I just wonder how many
> > > more years you're willing to commit to this strategy before you try
> > > something differant.
> > As far as I can see, there is nothing different to try. All other
> > behaviours that have been suggested have turned out to be undefined.
> > Look above, where you say "find out what to project to mimic social
> > confidence". I'm sure you know that "find out" encompasses a huge
> > range of behaviours (compare "find out what it's like outside", "find
> > out how to cure cancer") so which of the various encompassed
> > behaviours did you mean by this one?
> Well this is the nature of human communication. When I speak to
> someone, I generally assume that they will try their best to figure
> out what it is that I mean, regardless of whether they agree with it
> or not.
Sure. But if you're trying to tell someone something that they
don't already know, you have to make sure that you tell them using
terms that they *do* know.
> Now surely you've had to "find out" something before. Now what ways
> could one do this? If it were me, the first thing I'd do is do some
> searching on the internet. Lucky for me there is a wealth of
> knowledge out there about learning how to attract women. If for some
> reason that didn't occur to me, the second route I would take would be
> to go to the bookstore or library and see if there were any books that
> might help me out there. Lucky for me, again, I would discover that
> there are.
I have tried both of those. But all of the information found is
written to be read by a person with a higher existing level of social
skills. Some of it is actually meaningless, for example "dress well"
- well, of course doing anything well is going to be better than doing
it badly! Others are things like "develop rapport". Even the "how to
win friends" book has advice like "arouse in the other person an eager
want" although he does at least try to use examples to explain what he
means.
(And that should also tell you that, just because it those low
levels it gets hard to directly describe what's being done, it doesn't
mean you can't teach it. Using examples is one way around it, there
are others too.)
> If that didn't occur to me, I might think to myself that
> going out and using trial and error to approach girls might be a good
> tactic to "find out" something. Once again I would discover that this
> would also yield some positive results in terms of trying to "find
> out" something.
I have previously posted a debunking of this. The search space
involved is so colossal that no known refinement method can reduce it
fast enough to enable you to find success within a human lifespan with
anything greater than 10% probability. And this is componded by the
lack of feedback you get from errors. This applies to successful
people too, by the way: however they learn, it isn't trial and error.
Presumably it's something else subconscious that they aren't
consciously aware of, so in conscious thought they ASSUME it's trial
and error by default. Alternatively, it may have a trial and error
COMPONENT, but it must be driven at the back end by some method of
identifying a subset TO TRY (as opposed to any number of subsets *NOT*
to try).
> I'm busting your balls a little bit, but I'm genuinely trying to be
> constructive. I doubt that all this negative writing you're doing is
> helping you in your quest to improve your life (at least that's what
> I'm assuming your quest is, correct me if I'm wrong). I doubt you
> feel very good after writing this kind of stuff. But I could be wrong
> about this, you've given the expirement plenty of time to work. Have
> you gotten any positive results from this?
Since it is at the moment - and in my perception - the only option I
have, the quality of results it produces is irrelevant because the
only alternative is to do nothing.
Marlow
> > Well this is the nature of human communication. When I speak to
> > someone, I generally assume that they will try their best to figure
> > out what it is that I mean, regardless of whether they agree with it
> > or not.
>
> Sure. But if you're trying to tell someone something that they
> don't already know, you have to make sure that you tell them using
> terms that they *do* know.
Sure, but I generally assume that the person won't pretend to not know
what terms like "find out" means and won't try to change definitions
of ordinary words around in order to purposefully not understand
something for the sake of logic games.
>
> > Now surely you've had to "find out" something before. Now what ways
> > could one do this? If it were me, the first thing I'd do is do some
> > searching on the internet. Lucky for me there is a wealth of
> > knowledge out there about learning how to attract women. If for some
> > reason that didn't occur to me, the second route I would take would be
> > to go to the bookstore or library and see if there were any books that
> > might help me out there. Lucky for me, again, I would discover that
> > there are.
>
> I have tried both of those. But all of the information found is
> written to be read by a person with a higher existing level of social
> skills.
>Some of it is actually meaningless, for example "dress well"
> - well, of course doing anything well is going to be better than doing
> it badly! Others are things like "develop rapport". Even the "how to
> win friends" book has advice like "arouse in the other person an eager
> want" although he does at least try to use examples to explain what he
> means.
> (And that should also tell you that, just because it those low
> levels it gets hard to directly describe what's being done, it doesn't
> mean you can't teach it. Using examples is one way around it, there
> are others too.)
That's why you have to use your own noodle to figure out ways to apply
this stuff, instead of using your own noodle to figure out why it's
all so impossible. If you're not getting the answers you want, then
maybe you need to learn how to ask better questions.
One example, for dress. If you want examples, then one way to do this
for yourself would be to go to an internet web sight, pick out some
clothes that you think might look ok (in other words make your best
guess) and post the links on to a newsgroup (preferably not this one,
a fashion news group would make more sense) and ask for opinions.
Better yet, go buy some clothes you think might look good, take a
picture of yourself wearing them, and post that. If they suck return
them. If you can't return them, you've at least learned something.
This is only one example of how you could take it upon yourself to ask
better questions. Surely you could think of some other ways?
A prediction: your gut level reaction is to try to find ways that the
above example is unworkable for you.
>
> > If that didn't occur to me, I might think to myself that
> > going out and using trial and error to approach girls might be a good
> > tactic to "find out" something. Once again I would discover that this
> > would also yield some positive results in terms of trying to "find
> > out" something.
>
> I have previously posted a debunking of this. The search space
> involved is so colossal that no known refinement method can reduce it
> fast enough to enable you to find success within a human lifespan with
> anything greater than 10% probability. And this is componded by the
> lack of feedback you get from errors. This applies to successful
> people too, by the way: however they learn, it isn't trial and error.
> Presumably it's something else subconscious that they aren't
> consciously aware of, so in conscious thought they ASSUME it's trial
> and error by default. Alternatively, it may have a trial and error
> COMPONENT, but it must be driven at the back end by some method of
> identifying a subset TO TRY (as opposed to any number of subsets *NOT*
> to try).
This sounds a lot like argument for arguments sake. Instead of
playing the Devil's advocate all the time, why not try just playing
the advocate? Like trying to figure out how trial and error type
expirements could be applied and useful in conjunction with your other
research instead of trying to prove that trial and error is useless.
>
> > I'm busting your balls a little bit, but I'm genuinely trying to be
> > constructive. I doubt that all this negative writing you're doing is
> > helping you in your quest to improve your life (at least that's what
> > I'm assuming your quest is, correct me if I'm wrong). I doubt you
> > feel very good after writing this kind of stuff. But I could be wrong
> > about this, you've given the expirement plenty of time to work. Have
> > you gotten any positive results from this?
>
> Since it is at the moment - and in my perception - the only option I
> have, the quality of results it produces is irrelevant because the
> only alternative is to do nothing.
I assume from your answer that you haven't gotten ANY positive results
from your approach. It seems that after six or seven YEARS of doing
this, that if it were going to eventually work you would've gotten
SOME positive results by now, don't you think? You're a bright guy,
surely you could think of some differant approaches to learning? One
obvious example would be to lessen your expectations about what you
think a group mostly comprised of the *least* socially skilled people
in society are going to be able to teach you about socializing. I
mean, at the very very least, it seems if you were really trying to
use this as your only alternative to doing nothing, you would at least
want to try differant newsgroups. I mean, please honestly, posting
pseudo-logical arguments to this one obscure newsgroup on usenet is
the *ONLY* alternative you can think of with all your mental powers to
doing nothing???
Marlow
Mark Green
> > > Well this is the nature of human communication. When I speak to
> > > someone, I generally assume that they will try their best to figure
> > > out what it is that I mean, regardless of whether they agree with it
> > > or not.
> > Sure. But if you're trying to tell someone something that they
> > don't already know, you have to make sure that you tell them using
> > terms that they *do* know.
> Sure, but I generally assume that the person won't pretend to not know
> what terms like "find out" means and won't try to change definitions
> of ordinary words around in order to purposefully not understand
> something for the sake of logic games.
Ok, and I will admit to having done that in the past. *But*, it
wasn't a logic game *every* time I misunderstood. There genuinely are
problems with the standard words used to describe social experiences.
> > it badly! Others are things like "develop rapport". Even the "how to
> > win friends" book has advice like "arouse in the other person an eager
> > want" although he does at least try to use examples to explain what he
> > means.
> > (And that should also tell you that, just because it those low
> > levels it gets hard to directly describe what's being done, it doesn't
> > mean you can't teach it. Using examples is one way around it, there
> > are others too.)
> That's why you have to use your own noodle to figure out ways to apply
> this stuff, instead of using your own noodle to figure out why it's
> all so impossible.
But that's just the problem: *all* the advice comes down to me
having to work out, not just how to apply it, but what it actually
*means* in concrete terms. And almost inevitably, the knowledge
required to work out what it means is such that, if I'd possessed it
before, I wouldn't have needed the advice!
I mean, think for a second about "dress well". The only case in
which it would both a) be useful to give that as advice (ie, it would
tell me something I didn't know), and b) I would know how to act on
it, would be the case where I knew how to dress well but wasn't doing
it because I didn't know I had to. Is that even vaguely realistic?
How would I have learned to dress well without also learning about the
benefits of doing so?
> One example, for dress. If you want examples, then one way to do this
> for yourself would be to go to an internet web sight, pick out some
> clothes that you think might look ok (in other words make your best
> guess) and post the links on to a newsgroup (preferably not this one,
> a fashion news group would make more sense) and ask for opinions.
> Better yet, go buy some clothes you think might look good, take a
> picture of yourself wearing them, and post that. If they suck return
> them. If you can't return them, you've at least learned something.
That's an interesting idea. But what if the opinions I get back are
divided?
> > I have previously posted a debunking of this. The search space
> > involved is so colossal that no known refinement method can reduce it
> > fast enough to enable you to find success within a human lifespan with
> > anything greater than 10% probability. And this is componded by the
> > lack of feedback you get from errors. This applies to successful
> > people too, by the way: however they learn, it isn't trial and error.
> > Presumably it's something else subconscious that they aren't
> > consciously aware of, so in conscious thought they ASSUME it's trial
> > and error by default. Alternatively, it may have a trial and error
> > COMPONENT, but it must be driven at the back end by some method of
> > identifying a subset TO TRY (as opposed to any number of subsets *NOT*
> > to try).
> This sounds a lot like argument for arguments sake. Instead of
> playing the Devil's advocate all the time, why not try just playing
> the advocate? Like trying to figure out how trial and error type
> expirements could be applied and useful in conjunction with your other
> research instead of trying to prove that trial and error is useless.
I'm not saying that trial and error is useless. What I am saying is
that *just* giving "just use trial and error" as advice falls into the
trap of "dress well" above. You can't actually "just" use trial and
error, since you need something more: a way to choose the next trial
given your record of previous errors. (Which is called a "refinement
system", although I know that's robot talk, but you still have one
even if you don't call it that! ;) )
The entire skill of being able to use trial and error for social
situations is in having an appropriate refinement system. That
refinement system must be based on a large amount of background
knowledge (because any generic one fails due to the size of the search
space) and the statement "use trial and error" fails to impart any of
that knowledge.
> > > feel very good after writing this kind of stuff. But I could be wrong
> > > about this, you've given the expirement plenty of time to work. Have
> > > you gotten any positive results from this?
> > Since it is at the moment - and in my perception - the only option I
> > have, the quality of results it produces is irrelevant because the
> > only alternative is to do nothing.
> I assume from your answer that you haven't gotten ANY positive results
> from your approach. It seems that after six or seven YEARS of doing
> this, that if it were going to eventually work you would've gotten
> SOME positive results by now, don't you think?
Again, I'm not doing it because it's going to eventually work, I'm
doing it because it's my only option. If I've crawled through the
desert for 20 miles, I might well accept that there's no oasis, but
carrying on beats lying on the sand to die.
> You're a bright guy,
> surely you could think of some differant approaches to learning? One
> obvious example would be to lessen your expectations about what you
> think a group mostly comprised of the *least* socially skilled people
> in society are going to be able to teach you about socializing.
That's one of the awkward problems with learning social skills: the
people who are really good at them either a) won't teach, because they
don't care, b) can't teach, because they aren't conscious of having
learned. Again, I don't know how to get around this, as there don't
appear to be any socially skilled teachers who are capable of teaching
someone with a skill level as low as mine.
> mean, at the very very least, it seems if you were really trying to
> use this as your only alternative to doing nothing, you would at least
> want to try differant newsgroups. I mean, please honestly, posting
> pseudo-logical arguments to this one obscure newsgroup on usenet is
> the *ONLY* alternative you can think of with all your mental powers to
> doing nothing???
Why would I want to try different newsgroups? People on other ngs
probably will be even more prone to chuck out unresolvable abstract
advice because they've not experience social problems themselves, and
they'll be even more resistant and hostile to requests for detail.
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <88139ee2.04050...@posting.google.com> Mark Green
<mark....@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
>pdfj...@yahoo.com (Marlow) wrote in message
>news:<b79c52e4.04050...@posting.google.com>...
> But that's just the problem: *all* the advice comes down to me
>having to work out, not just how to apply it, but what it actually
>*means* in concrete terms. And almost inevitably, the knowledge
>required to work out what it means is such that, if I'd possessed it
>before, I wouldn't have needed the advice!
I have to vote with Mark on this one; maybe not "*all* the advice", but
much of it, does seem to be circular. People like Mark and I get
frustrated as we get into long discussions without getting the answers
we want/need, and people like Trainspotter get frustrated as they talk
their mouth dry. Eventually, both sides just throw up their arms in a
desperate "Aaargh!" and go away for a while as they gather energy for
the next bout.
There seems to be a certain obviousness about certain things, once
you've grasped them, that precludes explaining it to another person.
Like the infamous "just do it" - it's probably just not possible to
verbalise the lesson.
> I'm not saying that trial and error is useless. What I am saying is
>that *just* giving "just use trial and error" as advice falls into the
>trap of "dress well" above. You can't actually "just" use trial and
>error, since you need something more: a way to choose the next trial
>given your record of previous errors. (Which is called a "refinement
>system", although I know that's robot talk, but you still have one
>even if you don't call it that! ;) )
> The entire skill of being able to use trial and error for social
>situations is in having an appropriate refinement system. That
>refinement system must be based on a large amount of background
>knowledge (because any generic one fails due to the size of the search
>space) and the statement "use trial and error" fails to impart any of
>that knowledge.
I think somehow the solution still available to some of us (I sincerely
hope it is for you, Mark) is to let that quasi-magical pattern-spotting
capacity of the human brain do its work. Some people do that by
observing others being successful, and at some point they can "just" be
successful as well, without knowing how they do it. Others apply this
mythical "trial and error" mechanism, which, as Mark rightly (IMHO)
points out, is *not* all that's going on, and they, too, "just" learn to
achieve success.
So, Mark, I don't know what I can suggest to you that you haven't
already tried. "Go out" some more, until something just "clicks" and
suddenly you're the life of the party??? I'm just as clueless...
there's a prevailing sense of "been there, done that, got the T-shirt"
when people offer me their feel-good self-help book nebulous platitudes.
Aaargh.
Oh well. I'm going to Europe next week for my cousin's wedding, and
then I'll spend the rest of the time (hopefully) stranded in Italy,
*forced* to figure out how to "make it". Hope I don't end up living
under a bridge...
> Again, I'm not doing it because it's going to eventually work, I'm
>doing it because it's my only option. If I've crawled through the
>desert for 20 miles, I might well accept that there's no oasis, but
>carrying on beats lying on the sand to die.
I share your frustration.
> That's one of the awkward problems with learning social skills: the
>people who are really good at them either a) won't teach, because they
>don't care, b) can't teach, because they aren't conscious of having
>learned. Again, I don't know how to get around this, as there don't
>appear to be any socially skilled teachers who are capable of teaching
>someone with a skill level as low as mine.
So only us socially unskilled here in a.s.s are capable of teaching you?
Oh, horror! :)
> Why would I want to try different newsgroups? People on other ngs
>probably will be even more prone to chuck out unresolvable abstract
>advice because they've not experience social problems themselves, and
>they'll be even more resistant and hostile to requests for detail.
I hear Mxsmanic does about 21925 groups. You might run into him. Or
it, rather, the ELIZA with an NNTP interface.
- --
http://voyager.abite.co.za/~berndj/ (f1084a555d2098411cff4cefd41d2e2a1c85d18c)
"years from now, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and quickly
change the subject" - lee
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFAl5aK/FmLrNfLpjMRAta0AKCa1lhGZ/jLAwFdjGWN1ZiPGs1YsgCgpHl5
yKlHohS/ZC1RGk+FXf+XM2A=
=vRpl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
SadSadSoul
> I'm going to gain 20 lbs. in muscle and lose 15 pounds in fat and see
> if that will give me confidence. Here we go low-carb diet.
Low carb sucks, lost 6 pounds in 3 days but felt like crap. Carbs =
energy. And it was most likely waterweight.
Marlow
> Ok, and I will admit to having done that in the past. *But*, it
> wasn't a logic game *every* time I misunderstood. There genuinely are
> problems with the standard words used to describe social experiences.
Thank you for being up front.
> But that's just the problem: *all* the advice comes down to me
> having to work out, not just how to apply it, but what it actually
> *means* in concrete terms. And almost inevitably, the knowledge
> required to work out what it means is such that, if I'd possessed it
> before, I wouldn't have needed the advice!
I've personally found that about 95% of the advice I've read is
useless. That is a lot differant than saying *all* the advice is
useless. It just takes some digging around. I've found a lot of
advice that was specific enough for me to apply to my own life, but I
was only able to do this because I was willing to sort through the
garbage and think "how could I apply this?" to each thing that I read.
> I mean, think for a second about "dress well". The only case in
> which it would both a) be useful to give that as advice (ie, it would
> tell me something I didn't know), and b) I would know how to act on
> it, would be the case where I knew how to dress well but wasn't doing
> it because I didn't know I had to. Is that even vaguely realistic?
> How would I have learned to dress well without also learning about the
> benefits of doing so?
Saying 'dress well' at the minimum causes you to start paying
attention to your dress. Of course all the advice you're ever going
to read is going to be extremely limited, there's nothing you can do
to change that. One way to work around it is to ask better questions
like I said below, and to use your mind to try to think of possible
solutions, instead of thinking about how useless all the advice is.
>
> > One example, for dress. If you want examples, then one way to do this
> > for yourself would be to go to an internet web sight, pick out some
> > clothes that you think might look ok (in other words make your best
> > guess) and post the links on to a newsgroup (preferably not this one,
> > a fashion news group would make more sense) and ask for opinions.
> > Better yet, go buy some clothes you think might look good, take a
> > picture of yourself wearing them, and post that. If they suck return
> > them. If you can't return them, you've at least learned something.
>
> That's an interesting idea. But what if the opinions I get back are
> divided?
This question kind of sums up a lot of the problems you're having. In
dealing with this stuff there is a very real temptation to want to
know what to do in every possible contingency before actually trying
anything. You could spend a lifetime trying to plan for every
possible fork in the road. It just doesn't work.
Your question is in regards to a hypothetical situation that you've
come up with in your own mind by just sitting there. "what if"
questions, generally speaking, aren't useful in dealing with social
matters (there are exceptions to this of course). A more useful
question would incorporate trial and error by you actually doing the
above excersize, and then if the opinions you got back were divided
you could ask "why are the opinions divided?" That would possibly
yield you some useful answers and at least the excersize would be
grounded more in reality. This approach also can save time because if
the opinions aren't divided, then you haven't wasted hours, days,
weeks, and years of your life worrying about it. Does this make sense
to you?
>
> I'm not saying that trial and error is useless. What I am saying is
> that *just* giving "just use trial and error" as advice falls into the
> trap of "dress well" above. You can't actually "just" use trial and
> error, since you need something more: a way to choose the next trial
> given your record of previous errors. (Which is called a "refinement
> system", although I know that's robot talk, but you still have one
> even if you don't call it that! ;) )
> The entire skill of being able to use trial and error for social
> situations is in having an appropriate refinement system. That
> refinement system must be based on a large amount of background
> knowledge (because any generic one fails due to the size of the search
> space) and the statement "use trial and error" fails to impart any of
> that knowledge.
Since you're not saying that trial and error is useless, then in what
ways do you think you could apply trial and error in a useful manner?
>
> Again, I'm not doing it because it's going to eventually work, I'm
> doing it because it's my only option. If I've crawled through the
> desert for 20 miles, I might well accept that there's no oasis, but
> carrying on beats lying on the sand to die.
It's just peculiar that you've settled on this one pattern of behavior
as your alternative to doing nothing. You've dismissed reading books
and doing research on the internet because it's not useful, but by
your above reasoning reading that stuff *at minimum* can't be any more
useless than what you've been doing.
>
> > You're a bright guy,
> > surely you could think of some differant approaches to learning? One
> > obvious example would be to lessen your expectations about what you
> > think a group mostly comprised of the *least* socially skilled people
> > in society are going to be able to teach you about socializing.
>
> That's one of the awkward problems with learning social skills: the
> people who are really good at them either a) won't teach, because they
> don't care, b) can't teach, because they aren't conscious of having
> learned. Again, I don't know how to get around this, as there don't
> appear to be any socially skilled teachers who are capable of teaching
> someone with a skill level as low as mine.
As I've alluded to above, in this arena of knowledge I've found the
best way to get people to give good specific advice is to relate to
them specifically what I've tried and what happened. The more I can
relate in terms of what I said, how I felt, etc., the better they can
evaluate what likely mistakes I'm making so I can correct them.
They're still operating on less than perfect knowledge of the
situations I'm facing, but that is the nature of communication.
>
> > mean, at the very very least, it seems if you were really trying to
> > use this as your only alternative to doing nothing, you would at least
> > want to try differant newsgroups. I mean, please honestly, posting
> > pseudo-logical arguments to this one obscure newsgroup on usenet is
> > the *ONLY* alternative you can think of with all your mental powers to
> > doing nothing???
>
> Why would I want to try different newsgroups? People on other ngs
> probably will be even more prone to chuck out unresolvable abstract
> advice because they've not experience social problems themselves, and
> they'll be even more resistant and hostile to requests for detail.
Once again, you're basing this on hypothetical situations instead of
actual real life events. If all the advice you've gotten here has
been useless, then how could anyone be even more prone to give out bad
advice? People that are naturally socially skilled in general have a
hard time teaching people the skills they need, but this is only a
general rule. There are people out there who are also good teachers,
it's just a matter of seeking them out IME.
Marlow
Mark Green
> > having to work out, not just how to apply it, but what it actually
> > *means* in concrete terms. And almost inevitably, the knowledge
> > required to work out what it means is such that, if I'd possessed it
> > before, I wouldn't have needed the advice!
> I've personally found that about 95% of the advice I've read is
> useless. That is a lot differant than saying *all* the advice is
> useless. It just takes some digging around. I've found a lot of
> advice that was specific enough for me to apply to my own life, but I
> was only able to do this because I was willing to sort through the
> garbage and think "how could I apply this?" to each thing that I read.
That's true, but it's not a clear response. The fact that 95% of
advice is useless does not imply that I, if I give advice to someone
else, have a 95% random chance of giving useless advice no matter what
I say. Neither do you.
> > I mean, think for a second about "dress well". The only case in
> > which it would both a) be useful to give that as advice (ie, it would
> > tell me something I didn't know), and b) I would know how to act on
> > it, would be the case where I knew how to dress well but wasn't doing
> > it because I didn't know I had to. Is that even vaguely realistic?
> > How would I have learned to dress well without also learning about the
> > benefits of doing so?
> Saying 'dress well' at the minimum causes you to start paying
> attention to your dress. Of course all the advice you're ever going
> to read is going to be extremely limited, there's nothing you can do
> to change that.
Sure. But in that case, there must be some other source (after all,
non-shies learned how to dress well from *somewhere*).
> One way to work around it is to ask better questions
> like I said below, and to use your mind to try to think of possible
> solutions, instead of thinking about how useless all the advice is.
How can I possibly "use my mind to try to think of possible
solutions" to this? You can only reason out solutions if there's some
basis for reasoning and you and others have stated that this isn't the
case for clothing (hint: if there was, you could state the base
propositions..) So this is basically asking me to know something that
I don't!
> > > Better yet, go buy some clothes you think might look good, take a
> > > picture of yourself wearing them, and post that. If they suck return
> > > them. If you can't return them, you've at least learned something.
> > That's an interesting idea. But what if the opinions I get back are
> > divided?
> This question kind of sums up a lot of the problems you're having. In
> dealing with this stuff there is a very real temptation to want to
> know what to do in every possible contingency before actually trying
> anything. You could spend a lifetime trying to plan for every
> possible fork in the road. It just doesn't work.
But it does. Watch a non-shy person sometime. Even if something
unexpected happens, it's very unlikely that they'll just freeze in
place (smoke pouring from their ears?) with no way of deciding what
action to take next. It's true, you can't plan out for every fork in
the road. What you CAN do is to have a sufficient base of information
that, whichever fork does come up, you can work out what to do on the
fly. And it's clearly possible to have that, because successful
people do.
> > I'm not saying that trial and error is useless. What I am saying is
> > that *just* giving "just use trial and error" as advice falls into the
> > trap of "dress well" above. You can't actually "just" use trial and
> > error, since you need something more: a way to choose the next trial
> > given your record of previous errors. (Which is called a "refinement
> > system", although I know that's robot talk, but you still have one
> > even if you don't call it that! ;) )
> > The entire skill of being able to use trial and error for social
> > situations is in having an appropriate refinement system. That
> > refinement system must be based on a large amount of background
> > knowledge (because any generic one fails due to the size of the search
> > space) and the statement "use trial and error" fails to impart any of
> > that knowledge.
> Since you're not saying that trial and error is useless, then in what
> ways do you think you could apply trial and error in a useful manner?
It could be applied in a useful manner if I had an adequate
refinement system. That is, a system which - after a social situation
- tells me what I ought to do differently at the next one. At the
moment I do not have that. If I go out and get ignored all night, I
do not know if it is because I was badly dressed, because I didn't
approach enough people, or because I used the wrong words in the
approaches I did make.
"Neither do successful people" you say. But at least two of these
(words and dress) are near-infinite search spaces. Without that
feedback, it would be possible to spend a lifetime searching the wrong
one (ie, trying every possible approach line while still dressing
dorky but not realising it) and never find success. If non-shies were
making the decision of which one to search purely randomly, no more
than 50% would succeed (since each person would have a 50% chance of
guessing on the correct one to search). Therefore it is not random;
therefore they DO have a refinement system.
> > Again, I'm not doing it because it's going to eventually work, I'm
> > doing it because it's my only option. If I've crawled through the
> > desert for 20 miles, I might well accept that there's no oasis, but
> > carrying on beats lying on the sand to die.
> It's just peculiar that you've settled on this one pattern of behavior
> as your alternative to doing nothing. You've dismissed reading books
> and doing research on the internet because it's not useful, but by
> your above reasoning reading that stuff *at minimum* can't be any more
> useless than what you've been doing.
The books, and most of the internet content, is static and finite.
The responses I get here are dynamic and theoretically infinite over
time.
> > > You're a bright guy,
> > > surely you could think of some differant approaches to learning? One
> > > obvious example would be to lessen your expectations about what you
> > > think a group mostly comprised of the *least* socially skilled people
> > > in society are going to be able to teach you about socializing.
> > That's one of the awkward problems with learning social skills: the
> > people who are really good at them either a) won't teach, because they
> > don't care, b) can't teach, because they aren't conscious of having
> > learned. Again, I don't know how to get around this, as there don't
> > appear to be any socially skilled teachers who are capable of teaching
> > someone with a skill level as low as mine.
> As I've alluded to above, in this arena of knowledge I've found the
> best way to get people to give good specific advice is to relate to
> them specifically what I've tried and what happened. The more I can
> relate in terms of what I said, how I felt, etc., the better they can
> evaluate what likely mistakes I'm making so I can correct them.
> They're still operating on less than perfect knowledge of the
> situations I'm facing, but that is the nature of communication.
Usually their knowledge of the situations isn't the problem. The
problem is that they have no idea how to communicate their advice in
language that can be understood without knowledge that, if possessed,
would render the advice unnecessary.
> > Why would I want to try different newsgroups? People on other ngs
> > probably will be even more prone to chuck out unresolvable abstract
> > advice because they've not experience social problems themselves, and
> > they'll be even more resistant and hostile to requests for detail.
> Once again, you're basing this on hypothetical situations instead of
> actual real life events.
Um, no, these are actual real life events. Look at the responses that
Robert Maas got when he posted about a newsgroup meet on another ng he
subscribed to. I've been seriously slammed by the editor of a
webforum for asking even the milder kind of question that's attracted
discussion on a.s.s.
> If all the advice you've gotten here has
> been useless, then how could anyone be even more prone to give out bad
> advice? People that are naturally socially skilled in general have a
> hard time teaching people the skills they need, but this is only a
> general rule. There are people out there who are also good teachers,
> it's just a matter of seeking them out IME.
I have no idea how they would be saught out. Many social skills
coaches are very bad teachers.
Marlow
read.
>
> That's true, but it's not a clear response. The fact that 95% of
> advice is useless does not imply that I, if I give advice to someone
> else, have a 95% random chance of giving useless advice no matter what
> I say. Neither do you.
Oh well, you missed the point.
> > Saying 'dress well' at the minimum causes you to start paying
> > attention to your dress. Of course all the advice you're ever going
> > to read is going to be extremely limited, there's nothing you can do
> > to change that.
>
> Sure. But in that case, there must be some other source (after all,
> non-shies learned how to dress well from *somewhere*).
Well if you find it, be sure to let me know.
>
> > One way to work around it is to ask better questions
> > like I said below, and to use your mind to try to think of possible
> > solutions, instead of thinking about how useless all the advice is.
>
> How can I possibly "use my mind to try to think of possible
> solutions" to this? You can only reason out solutions if there's some
> basis for reasoning and you and others have stated that this isn't the
> case for clothing (hint: if there was, you could state the base
> propositions..) So this is basically asking me to know something that
> I don't!
Just asking you to try is all. I already gave you the work around
that I thought up in about five seconds. If you use your mind to
think of work arounds instead of using it to prove that the advice
you've received is useless, you might have differant results is all
I'm saying. But hey, whatever works for you!
>
> > > > Better yet, go buy some clothes you think might look good, take a
> > > > picture of yourself wearing them, and post that. If they suck return
> > > > them. If you can't return them, you've at least learned something.
> > > That's an interesting idea. But what if the opinions I get back are
> > > divided?
> > This question kind of sums up a lot of the problems you're having. In
> > dealing with this stuff there is a very real temptation to want to
> > know what to do in every possible contingency before actually trying
> > anything. You could spend a lifetime trying to plan for every
> > possible fork in the road. It just doesn't work.
>
> But it does. Watch a non-shy person sometime. Even if something
> unexpected happens, it's very unlikely that they'll just freeze in
> place (smoke pouring from their ears?) with no way of deciding what
> action to take next. It's true, you can't plan out for every fork in
> the road. What you CAN do is to have a sufficient base of information
> that, whichever fork does come up, you can work out what to do on the
> fly. And it's clearly possible to have that, because successful
> people do.
Maybe, but it's doubtful that they sat down and thought about all the
various forks in the road before they actually tried to do anything.
You try an expirement, maybe you suck at it, but maybe you learn
something. The skills you develop may help you to navigate future
forks in the road intuitively, I dunno. But if you're unwilling to
try even a simple expirement like the one above without worrying about
all the future negative possabilities, then I don't know what to tell
you.
Yep, just keep intellectualizing all the problems you might have.
Maybe you'll work out an intellectual solution to these hypothetical
problems. This doesn't interest me personally, as I prefer to deal
with real situations instead of made up ones, but that's just me.
>
> > > Again, I'm not doing it because it's going to eventually work, I'm
> > > doing it because it's my only option. If I've crawled through the
> > > desert for 20 miles, I might well accept that there's no oasis, but
> > > carrying on beats lying on the sand to die.
> > It's just peculiar that you've settled on this one pattern of behavior
> > as your alternative to doing nothing. You've dismissed reading books
> > and doing research on the internet because it's not useful, but by
> > your above reasoning reading that stuff *at minimum* can't be any more
> > useless than what you've been doing.
>
> The books, and most of the internet content, is static and finite.
> The responses I get here are dynamic and theoretically infinite over
> time.
Ok, if it works for you. I like to poke my head in here every year or
two and see how you're doing. In my opinion you're not going to get
anywhere as long as you keep clinging to these logical arguments, but
that's just one man's opinion.
>
> > > > You're a bright guy,
> > > > surely you could think of some differant approaches to learning? One
> > > > obvious example would be to lessen your expectations about what you
> > > > think a group mostly comprised of the *least* socially skilled people
> > > > in society are going to be able to teach you about socializing.
> > > That's one of the awkward problems with learning social skills: the
> > > people who are really good at them either a) won't teach, because they
> > > don't care, b) can't teach, because they aren't conscious of having
> > > learned. Again, I don't know how to get around this, as there don't
> > > appear to be any socially skilled teachers who are capable of teaching
> > > someone with a skill level as low as mine.
> > As I've alluded to above, in this arena of knowledge I've found the
> > best way to get people to give good specific advice is to relate to
> > them specifically what I've tried and what happened. The more I can
> > relate in terms of what I said, how I felt, etc., the better they can
> > evaluate what likely mistakes I'm making so I can correct them.
> > They're still operating on less than perfect knowledge of the
> > situations I'm facing, but that is the nature of communication.
>
> Usually their knowledge of the situations isn't the problem. The
> problem is that they have no idea how to communicate their advice in
> language that can be understood without knowledge that, if possessed,
> would render the advice unnecessary.
Well there's no way around that one is there? You've got an air-tight
argument.
>
> > > Why would I want to try different newsgroups? People on other ngs
> > > probably will be even more prone to chuck out unresolvable abstract
> > > advice because they've not experience social problems themselves, and
> > > they'll be even more resistant and hostile to requests for detail.
> > Once again, you're basing this on hypothetical situations instead of
> > actual real life events.
>
> Um, no, these are actual real life events. Look at the responses that
> Robert Maas got when he posted about a newsgroup meet on another ng he
> subscribed to. I've been seriously slammed by the editor of a
> webforum for asking even the milder kind of question that's attracted
> discussion on a.s.s.
Ok if you're using robert maas as a typical example of what's likely
to happen to you, then I don't know what to tell you. I've seen lots
of folks do what I've described above. If you're getting hostile
responses, maybe the problem isn't the folks on the other end? Maybe
asking questions in a differant manner might yield you differant
results? (I've already described one possible alternate approach you
could take if you were interested).
>
> > If all the advice you've gotten here has
> > been useless, then how could anyone be even more prone to give out bad
> > advice? People that are naturally socially skilled in general have a
> > hard time teaching people the skills they need, but this is only a
> > general rule. There are people out there who are also good teachers,
> > it's just a matter of seeking them out IME.
>
> I have no idea how they would be saught out.
The easiest way is to do some searching on the internet. One forum
that many people find helpful is www.fastseduction.com, but this could
take you a very long time to wade through all the information there to
pick out the useful bits that you could apply, and on top of that
there's no guarantee that any of it will work, so maybe it's not worth
it to you. That's your call.
Marlow
Mark Green
> garbage and think "how could I apply this?" to each thing that I
> read.
> > That's true, but it's not a clear response. The fact that 95% of
> > advice is useless does not imply that I, if I give advice to someone
> > else, have a 95% random chance of giving useless advice no matter what
> > I say. Neither do you.
> Oh well, you missed the point.
No I didn't. You said I have to read around a lot to find useful
advice. But I'm saying that, since you're *writing* the advice and
you know me, you can just skip to the useful 5% straight away.
> > > This question kind of sums up a lot of the problems you're having. In
> > > dealing with this stuff there is a very real temptation to want to
> > > know what to do in every possible contingency before actually trying
> > > anything. You could spend a lifetime trying to plan for every
> > > possible fork in the road. It just doesn't work.
> > But it does. Watch a non-shy person sometime. Even if something
> > unexpected happens, it's very unlikely that they'll just freeze in
> > place (smoke pouring from their ears?) with no way of deciding what
> > action to take next. It's true, you can't plan out for every fork in
> > the road. What you CAN do is to have a sufficient base of information
> > that, whichever fork does come up, you can work out what to do on the
> > fly. And it's clearly possible to have that, because successful
> > people do.
> Maybe, but it's doubtful that they sat down and thought about all the
> various forks in the road before they actually tried to do anything.
> You try an expirement, maybe you suck at it, but maybe you learn
> something. The skills you develop may help you to navigate future
> forks in the road intuitively, I dunno. But if you're unwilling to
> try even a simple expirement like the one above without worrying about
> all the future negative possabilities, then I don't know what to tell
> you.
Posting my picture on an unknown newsgroup to ask for advice is a
"simple experiment"? Please. I'd probably get ignored or maybe even
killfiled for posting unsolicited binaries.
> > > Since you're not saying that trial and error is useless, then in what
> > > ways do you think you could apply trial and error in a useful manner?
> > It could be applied in a useful manner if I had an adequate
> > refinement system. That is, a system which - after a social situation
> > - tells me what I ought to do differently at the next one. At the
> > moment I do not have that. If I go out and get ignored all night, I
> > do not know if it is because I was badly dressed, because I didn't
> > approach enough people, or because I used the wrong words in the
> > approaches I did make.
> > "Neither do successful people" you say. But at least two of these
> > (words and dress) are near-infinite search spaces. Without that
> > feedback, it would be possible to spend a lifetime searching the wrong
> > one (ie, trying every possible approach line while still dressing
> > dorky but not realising it) and never find success. If non-shies were
> > making the decision of which one to search purely randomly, no more
> > than 50% would succeed (since each person would have a 50% chance of
> > guessing on the correct one to search). Therefore it is not random;
> > therefore they DO have a refinement system.
> Yep, just keep intellectualizing all the problems you might have.
> Maybe you'll work out an intellectual solution to these hypothetical
> problems. This doesn't interest me personally, as I prefer to deal
> with real situations instead of made up ones, but that's just me.
Um, absolutely none of the above is made up.
> > > > Again, I'm not doing it because it's going to eventually work, I'm
> > > > doing it because it's my only option. If I've crawled through the
> > > > desert for 20 miles, I might well accept that there's no oasis, but
> > > > carrying on beats lying on the sand to die.
> > > It's just peculiar that you've settled on this one pattern of behavior
> > > as your alternative to doing nothing. You've dismissed reading books
> > > and doing research on the internet because it's not useful, but by
> > > your above reasoning reading that stuff *at minimum* can't be any more
> > > useless than what you've been doing.
> > The books, and most of the internet content, is static and finite.
> > The responses I get here are dynamic and theoretically infinite over
> > time.
> Ok, if it works for you. I like to poke my head in here every year or
> two and see how you're doing. In my opinion you're not going to get
> anywhere as long as you keep clinging to these logical arguments, but
> that's just one man's opinion.
And ignores the fact that you, since you're one of the providers of
responses, have some influence on whether I get anywhere or not.
> > > As I've alluded to above, in this arena of knowledge I've found the
> > > best way to get people to give good specific advice is to relate to
> > > them specifically what I've tried and what happened. The more I can
> > > relate in terms of what I said, how I felt, etc., the better they can
> > > evaluate what likely mistakes I'm making so I can correct them.
> > > They're still operating on less than perfect knowledge of the
> > > situations I'm facing, but that is the nature of communication.
> > Usually their knowledge of the situations isn't the problem. The
> > problem is that they have no idea how to communicate their advice in
> > language that can be understood without knowledge that, if possessed,
> > would render the advice unnecessary.
> Well there's no way around that one is there? You've got an air-tight
> argument.
It's not an argument, it's an observation.
> > > > Why would I want to try different newsgroups? People on other ngs
> > > > probably will be even more prone to chuck out unresolvable abstract
> > > > advice because they've not experience social problems themselves, and
> > > > they'll be even more resistant and hostile to requests for detail.
> > > Once again, you're basing this on hypothetical situations instead of
> > > actual real life events.
> > Um, no, these are actual real life events. Look at the responses that
> > Robert Maas got when he posted about a newsgroup meet on another ng he
> > subscribed to. I've been seriously slammed by the editor of a
> > webforum for asking even the milder kind of question that's attracted
> > discussion on a.s.s.
> Ok if you're using robert maas as a typical example of what's likely
> to happen to you, then I don't know what to tell you.
He was a shybie, so am I.
> If you're getting hostile
> responses, maybe the problem isn't the folks on the other end?
I've never denied that the problem is probably me.
> Maybe
> asking questions in a differant manner might yield you differant
> results?
Abstract advice - WHICH different manner?
>(I've already described one possible alternate approach you
> could take if you were interested).
The previous description *was* the experiment you're proposing,
wasn't it? So if I got negative responses from that experiment, I'd
need another different approach?
mickey
> pdfj...@yahoo.com (Marlow) wrote in message news:<b79c52e4.04050...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> garbage and think "how could I apply this?" to each thing that I
>>read.
>>
>>> That's true, but it's not a clear response. The fact that 95% of
>>>advice is useless does not imply that I, if I give advice to someone
>>>else, have a 95% random chance of giving useless advice no matter what
>>>I say. Neither do you.
>>
>>Oh well, you missed the point.
>
>
> No I didn't. You said I have to read around a lot to find useful
> advice. But I'm saying that, since you're *writing* the advice and
> you know me, you can just skip to the useful 5% straight away.
>
>
>>
>>Maybe, but it's doubtful that they sat down and thought about all the
>>various forks in the road before they actually tried to do anything.
>>You try an expirement, maybe you suck at it, but maybe you learn
>>something. The skills you develop may help you to navigate future
>>forks in the road intuitively, I dunno. But if you're unwilling to
>>try even a simple expirement like the one above without worrying about
>>all the future negative possabilities, then I don't know what to tell
>>you.
>
>
> Posting my picture on an unknown newsgroup to ask for advice is a
> "simple experiment"? Please. I'd probably get ignored or maybe even
> killfiled for posting unsolicited binaries.
>
Put it up on webserver and post the link, put it on hotornot, send it
to the ASS gallery, there are a number of ways. And you're already in
more killfiles for being an ob-com logician than anybody ever got into
for posting a single binary.
-M
Trainspotter
> I have to vote with Mark on this one; maybe not "*all* the advice", but
> much of it, does seem to be circular. People like Mark and I get
> frustrated as we get into long discussions without getting the answers
> we want/need, and people like Trainspotter get frustrated as they talk
> their mouth dry. Eventually, both sides just throw up their arms in a
> desperate "Aaargh!" and go away for a while as they gather energy for
> the next bout.
>
> There seems to be a certain obviousness about certain things, once
> you've grasped them, that precludes explaining it to another person.
> Like the infamous "just do it" - it's probably just not possible to
> verbalise the lesson.
Pretty much. If you knew a guy who had been completely blind from
birth, could you really describe to him what a particular beautiful
girl looks like? Can a person that has been in heavy combat really
convey exactly what it was like to a person who's best frame of
reference is having seen the first fifteen minutes of "Saving Private
Ryan"? Even those writers and poets who are considered most gifted in
recreating for their readers a given experience fall horribly short.
Pathetically short. Look at someone who has just endured heavy
combat...and then look at someone who has never been in harm's way,
but has just finished reading "Red Badge Of Courage".
There's really no comparison. It's not even close. The two have not
remotely experienced the same thing.
There needs to be a certain amount of common ground, a certain amount
of shared understanding. Without this commonality, communication is
generally nothing more than an exercise in futility. Both people have
to share a certain contextual understanding, or "teaching" doesn't
usually amount to much.
So, basically, I agree with you. BUT I will throw in a little bit of
food for thought.
I have fought over the clothing issue with Mark many a time. I myself
don't have a great deal of fashion sense, but I manage to dress well
when I want to. How? By relying on "expert" opinion...people and
sources that do in fact know fashion far better than I do. Mark has
made it obvious that he resents receiving the advice to "dress well",
and has continually maintained that he cannot do this.
Yes, there is a point where I have to stop and just say "Why the hell
not?" I truly cannot comprehend how a person who has managed to live
on this planet for several decades without being institutionalized or
judged incompetent cannot simply figure out which stores in his area
are reputable, and then go and get the sales lady to outfit him.
Now, if someone is indeed insane, mentally incompetent, or possesses
some other mental illness - for instance a fear of crowds so great
that they simply can't bear entering the store in the first place -
then that I understand. Or even the far milder "I'm just too shy to
talk to the sales lady". That I get.
But that was never the argument. The argument would always turn to the
problem of infinite combinations and things of that nature. But again,
a person who manages to live a more or less functional life (in other
words, those people not institutionalized) obviously is able to
overcome the problem of "infinite choices" ALL the time. You have to
in order to live.
It seems like there is a certain amount of "selective incompetence" at
work.
There are certain things that a reasonably normal and functioning
adult should be able to understand. When a person claims that they
can't, then one has to wonder whether the argument is actually over
the purported subject, or rather something else is at play.
Typically, that's when you hit the impasse. That's when you realize
that the real problem is something else entirely, but you have no idea
what it is. The only thing you do know is that you really aren't
skilled or qualified enough to determine what the REAL problem is,
much less solve it.
Which is a long way of saying that I think a lot of the arguments are
actually over things other than what they purport to be. Anyway,
moving on.
When dealing with male/female relationships in particular, much of
that area really does have to be experienced in order to be
understood. Try as they might, the older generation simply cannot seem
to impart sufficient understanding upon the younger generation. The
young dudes just have to learn it themselves. Often that means the
hard way.
Which is why in some areas of life, you just have to dive in and take
your chances - win, lose or draw. Hopefully, you'll learn as you go. I
can't tell you how much good advice I got over the years, and promptly
disregarded it. It was only years later that I was able to understand,
because it was only years later that experience had provided a context
in which I really COULD understand.
So none of this is to say that advice and discussion have no value.
They can have great value. But the CONTEXT has to be there in BOTH
people's minds. Without that shared context, there are certain things
that just aren't going to make sense.
>
> > I'm not saying that trial and error is useless. What I am saying is
> >that *just* giving "just use trial and error" as advice falls into the
> >trap of "dress well" above. You can't actually "just" use trial and
> >error, since you need something more: a way to choose the next trial
> >given your record of previous errors. (Which is called a "refinement
> >system", although I know that's robot talk, but you still have one
> >even if you don't call it that! ;) )
> > The entire skill of being able to use trial and error for social
> >situations is in having an appropriate refinement system. That
> >refinement system must be based on a large amount of background
> >knowledge (because any generic one fails due to the size of the search
> >space) and the statement "use trial and error" fails to impart any of
> >that knowledge.
>
> I think somehow the solution still available to some of us (I sincerely
> hope it is for you, Mark) is to let that quasi-magical pattern-spotting
> capacity of the human brain do its work. Some people do that by
> observing others being successful, and at some point they can "just" be
> successful as well, without knowing how they do it. Others apply this
> mythical "trial and error" mechanism, which, as Mark rightly (IMHO)
> points out, is *not* all that's going on, and they, too, "just" learn to
> achieve success.
There are basic things that can enhance one's attractiveness. These
things are no great mystery (being fit, dressing well, good hygiene,
etc.), and are pretty much no-brainers.
Of course, these things don't guarantee success. We could certainly
imagine the possibility of a guy who is fit, appropriately dressed,
and has good hygiene...but somehow never succeeds with the ladies.
I've just never seen it.
Point is, there are starting points that should be obvious. Or, even
if not obvious, should be understandable when pointed out. Then, once
a guy is ready to dive in and actually talk to women (that's another
no-brainer...you've got to actually talk to them), there is plenty of
advice on how to go about doing it. Some of the advice isn't half bad.
For instance, David D's "Double Your Dating" newsletter is free and
has some decent stuff in it.
>
> So, Mark, I don't know what I can suggest to you that you haven't
> already tried. "Go out" some more, until something just "clicks" and
> suddenly you're the life of the party??? I'm just as clueless...
> there's a prevailing sense of "been there, done that, got the T-shirt"
> when people offer me their feel-good self-help book nebulous platitudes.
>
> Aaargh.
>
> Oh well. I'm going to Europe next week for my cousin's wedding, and
> then I'll spend the rest of the time (hopefully) stranded in Italy,
> *forced* to figure out how to "make it". Hope I don't end up living
> under a bridge...
If you can, go for it with a girl. You might find yourself as the
"cute foreigner". They will think your nervousness is just a lack of
fluency. You could be literally retarded and they probably wouldn't
know any better. You won't be expected to be clever or witty, because
they won't know half of what you are saying anyway.
And when you screw something up really badly, badly enough that it
would turn off a girl in your own country, there's a decent chance
that it will come across as "endearing", sort of a "national quirk".
>
> > Again, I'm not doing it because it's going to eventually work, I'm
> >doing it because it's my only option. If I've crawled through the
> >desert for 20 miles, I might well accept that there's no oasis, but
> >carrying on beats lying on the sand to die.
>
> I share your frustration.
>
> > That's one of the awkward problems with learning social skills: the
> >people who are really good at them either a) won't teach, because they
> >don't care, b) can't teach, because they aren't conscious of having
> >learned. Again, I don't know how to get around this, as there don't
> >appear to be any socially skilled teachers who are capable of teaching
> >someone with a skill level as low as mine.
>
> So only us socially unskilled here in a.s.s are capable of teaching you?
> Oh, horror! :)
There are plenty of resources available for the "no brainer" stuff.
Getting dressed appropriately is not a secret. Getting fit is not a
secret. Anybody who is functional enough to hold down a normal job is
functional enough to locate the information that they need to do these
things.
Honestly, the thing that amazes me most is the unbridled, if only
implicit, OPTIMISM that pervades all of the doom and gloom of certain
posters here. To them, the problem is mainly the "how to" of GETTING
women. The reality that such a high percentage of women are truly
crummy people does not seem to deter.
Mark Green
> > I have to vote with Mark on this one; maybe not "*all* the advice", but
> > much of it, does seem to be circular. People like Mark and I get
> > frustrated as we get into long discussions without getting the answers
> > we want/need, and people like Trainspotter get frustrated as they talk
> > their mouth dry. Eventually, both sides just throw up their arms in a
> > desperate "Aaargh!" and go away for a while as they gather energy for
> > the next bout.
> > There seems to be a certain obviousness about certain things, once
> > you've grasped them, that precludes explaining it to another person.
> > Like the infamous "just do it" - it's probably just not possible to
> > verbalise the lesson.
> Pretty much. If you knew a guy who had been completely blind from
> birth, could you really describe to him what a particular beautiful
> girl looks like?
Let him touch her.
>Can a person that has been in heavy combat really
> convey exactly what it was like to a person who's best frame of
> reference is having seen the first fifteen minutes of "Saving Private
> Ryan"?
Get a gun and shoot at him (with intent to miss, of course!).
[ And yea, this is unpleasant, but why the heck does the other guy
*want* to experience what combat is actually like? ]
> Yes, there is a point where I have to stop and just say "Why the hell
> not?" I truly cannot comprehend how a person who has managed to live
> on this planet for several decades without being institutionalized or
> judged incompetent cannot simply figure out which stores in his area
> are reputable, and then go and get the sales lady to outfit him.
The argument with that, and it has never changed, is that the sales
lady does not really care whether I dress well or not. All she cares
about is that I spend money at the store. Given that, a person
approaching who has no knowledge of clothes themselves is a sheep
waiting to be fleeced.
Albiet, my earlier paranoia may have been unfounded, but it seems
the actual technique used is to offer you several items of clothing
and let you choose. Of course, the reason why you approached the
salesperson was to avoid the choice problem in the first place, so
this is clearly pointless. It ensures that, when you turn out *not*
in fact to be well dressed, she can blame *your* choice rather than
her recommendation or the store, and encourage you to try another of
the set she recommended earlier.. which, of course, did not in fact
include *any* clothes which *would* constitute dressing well for you.
(Probably because she in fact does not know how to choose them, but is
just a moderately attractive young female hired for minimum wage to
point people to random clothes so that they believe they're
fashionable because a moderately attractive young female appeared to
like them.)
> But that was never the argument. The argument would always turn to the
> problem of infinite combinations and things of that nature. But again,
> a person who manages to live a more or less functional life (in other
> words, those people not institutionalized) obviously is able to
> overcome the problem of "infinite choices" ALL the time. You have to
> in order to live.
Sure, but normally the results of these choices are immediately
obvious and suggest refinement. When you fall off your bike, you know
which way you fell off and you know how hard you fell. Being socially
ignored doesn't give you any feedback.
> So none of this is to say that advice and discussion have no value.
> They can have great value. But the CONTEXT has to be there in BOTH
> people's minds. Without that shared context, there are certain things
> that just aren't going to make sense.
You can create the context.
Nobody said that the only way of giving advice was talking.
> There are basic things that can enhance one's attractiveness. These
> things are no great mystery (being fit, dressing well, good hygiene,
> etc.), and are pretty much no-brainers.
They're only no-brainers because you hide all the details in the
words. Using words like 'well' and 'good' is obviously going to do
this - what do the words 'well' and 'good' mean in this context? All
they mean "ways that are attractive". So all you're saying in the
sentence as a whole is, "good things are good". The question is what
makes something become good.
With being fit, the question is how to motivate people to do it.
You can argue that this is all willpower, or that you can't know how
to motivate someone else, but both of those are false: if they were
true, then people with personal trainers would not get fitter any
quicker than anyone else.
> Of course, these things don't guarantee success. We could certainly
> imagine the possibility of a guy who is fit, appropriately dressed,
> and has good hygiene...but somehow never succeeds with the ladies.
> I've just never seen it.
No. You've never seen them. Neither have the women. That's the
problem.
> Point is, there are starting points that should be obvious. Or, even
> if not obvious, should be understandable when pointed out. Then, once
> a guy is ready to dive in and actually talk to women (that's another
> no-brainer...you've got to actually talk to them),
How to do that is *not* a no-brainer if you have awkward geography
or time constraints.
> > > That's one of the awkward problems with learning social skills: the
> > >people who are really good at them either a) won't teach, because they
> > >don't care, b) can't teach, because they aren't conscious of having
> > >learned. Again, I don't know how to get around this, as there don't
> > >appear to be any socially skilled teachers who are capable of teaching
> > >someone with a skill level as low as mine.
> > So only us socially unskilled here in a.s.s are capable of teaching you?
> > Oh, horror! :)
> There are plenty of resources available for the "no brainer" stuff.
> Getting dressed appropriately is not a secret. Getting fit is not a
> secret. Anybody who is functional enough to hold down a normal job is
> functional enough to locate the information that they need to do these
> things.
Really.. so why would there be whole TV programs devoted to pointing
out the errors made by functional people with normal jobs when
dressing themselves?
> Honestly, the thing that amazes me most is the unbridled, if only
> implicit, OPTIMISM that pervades all of the doom and gloom of certain
> posters here. To them, the problem is mainly the "how to" of GETTING
> women. The reality that such a high percentage of women are truly
> crummy people does not seem to deter.
As has been pointed before, it's more an issue of choice and
percieved maturity than that of actually urgently wanting a
relationship.
Trainspotter
> > Pretty much. If you knew a guy who had been completely blind from
> > birth, could you really describe to him what a particular beautiful
> > girl looks like?
>
> Let him touch her.
Then you acknowledge my point, namely that some things cannot be fully
conveyed through mere verbal description?
>
> >Can a person that has been in heavy combat really
> > convey exactly what it was like to a person who's best frame of
> > reference is having seen the first fifteen minutes of "Saving Private
> > Ryan"?
>
> Get a gun and shoot at him (with intent to miss, of course!).
> [ And yea, this is unpleasant, but why the heck does the other guy
> *want* to experience what combat is actually like? ]
Again, you seem to be acknowledging the basic point that some things
cannot be fully conveyed through mere verbal description.
>
> > Yes, there is a point where I have to stop and just say "Why the hell
> > not?" I truly cannot comprehend how a person who has managed to live
> > on this planet for several decades without being institutionalized or
> > judged incompetent cannot simply figure out which stores in his area
> > are reputable, and then go and get the sales lady to outfit him.
>
> The argument with that, and it has never changed, is that the sales
> lady does not really care whether I dress well or not. All she cares
> about is that I spend money at the store. Given that, a person
> approaching who has no knowledge of clothes themselves is a sheep
> waiting to be fleeced.
And yet somehow you are able to dress for work. Are the work clothes
you wear randomly selected? Are you rendered helpless by the problem
of "infinite sets" and such?
Faced with such infinite choices, do you show up at work in a Burkha,
or in women's dresses, or simply not clothed at all? Or do you walk
around in a Klingon outfit, or in an outfit that would have been more
appropriate for 17th century Sicily?
I doubt it. In the pictures of you on the internet (that you
referenced some time ago), you seemed to be dressed rather normally.
Apparently you DO in fact possess at least some ability to cut through
the "infinite" set of clothing possibilities, and come up with
something that is reasonably suited for your particular area of the
planet in the early 21st century.
Why the selective incompetence?
> Albiet, my earlier paranoia may have been unfounded, but it seems
> the actual technique used is to offer you several items of clothing
> and let you choose. Of course, the reason why you approached the
> salesperson was to avoid the choice problem in the first place, so
> this is clearly pointless. It ensures that, when you turn out *not*
> in fact to be well dressed, she can blame *your* choice rather than
> her recommendation or the store, and encourage you to try another of
> the set she recommended earlier.. which, of course, did not in fact
> include *any* clothes which *would* constitute dressing well for you.
> (Probably because she in fact does not know how to choose them, but is
> just a moderately attractive young female hired for minimum wage to
> point people to random clothes so that they believe they're
> fashionable because a moderately attractive young female appeared to
> like them.)
This is taking a POSSIBILITY (that some sales staff will be either
incompetent or unethical) and turning it into a RULE. One does not
follow from the other.
The reality is that the typical reputable store will give you good
service in most cases. Sort of by definition, as "reputable" is going
to mean that the store enjoys a good reputation in your community.
And since it is the community that you are seeking to impress...
>
> > But that was never the argument. The argument would always turn to the
> > problem of infinite combinations and things of that nature. But again,
> > a person who manages to live a more or less functional life (in other
> > words, those people not institutionalized) obviously is able to
> > overcome the problem of "infinite choices" ALL the time. You have to
> > in order to live.
>
> Sure, but normally the results of these choices are immediately
> obvious and suggest refinement. When you fall off your bike, you know
> which way you fell off and you know how hard you fell. Being socially
> ignored doesn't give you any feedback.
It shows you that you may need to make some changes. True, it might
not point out exactly which changes to make. But that's where the
no-brainers come in - there are certain attributes that are widely
recognized as being of social benefit (being fit, dressing well, good
hygiene, etc.). In a world that provides imperfect feedback, it is
often wise to get back to basics.
>
> > So none of this is to say that advice and discussion have no value.
> > They can have great value. But the CONTEXT has to be there in BOTH
> > people's minds. Without that shared context, there are certain things
> > that just aren't going to make sense.
>
> You can create the context.
Sometimes you can create the context, sometimes you can't. It depends.
> Nobody said that the only way of giving advice was talking.
True. But the medium we are using right now (text on usenet) has
certain limitations.
>
> > There are basic things that can enhance one's attractiveness. These
> > things are no great mystery (being fit, dressing well, good hygiene,
> > etc.), and are pretty much no-brainers.
>
> They're only no-brainers because you hide all the details in the
> words. Using words like 'well' and 'good' is obviously going to do
> this - what do the words 'well' and 'good' mean in this context? All
> they mean "ways that are attractive". So all you're saying in the
> sentence as a whole is, "good things are good". The question is what
> makes something become good.
This is where things break down again. As noted before, there are
sources that one can use to dress well or get fit. You simply reject
the sources that "most" people use.
You do not deny that information is available, you simply don't trust
that information. Which of course is your choice.
However, someone is not being uselessly vague when they say "Go to a
reputable store in your area and get the sales lady to help you." The
fact that you don't trust that advice is a separate matter.
In other words, that sort of advice would not leave the typical person
high and dry. It only leaves you high and dry because you have
convinced yourself that the sales staff, even at a reputable store,
will not make a good faith effort to help you. Most people don't see
it that way.
>
> With being fit, the question is how to motivate people to do it.
> You can argue that this is all willpower, or that you can't know how
> to motivate someone else, but both of those are false: if they were
> true, then people with personal trainers would not get fitter any
> quicker than anyone else.
That raises the question of how personal trainers motivate people. I
doubt that many personal trainers get a lot of response from their
customers by never meeting them, and simply writing them text messages
on usenet. Instead, more typically, they meet and spend time in one
another's presence.
>
> > Of course, these things don't guarantee success. We could certainly
> > imagine the possibility of a guy who is fit, appropriately dressed,
> > and has good hygiene...but somehow never succeeds with the ladies.
> > I've just never seen it.
>
> No. You've never seen them. Neither have the women. That's the
> problem.
Show me a guy who has his act together (fit, dresses well, good
hygiene, etc.) and actually talks to women, but still has no success.
I'm not disputing that such is possible. I am, however, disputing that
such is likely.
>
> > Point is, there are starting points that should be obvious. Or, even
> > if not obvious, should be understandable when pointed out. Then, once
> > a guy is ready to dive in and actually talk to women (that's another
> > no-brainer...you've got to actually talk to them),
>
> How to do that is *not* a no-brainer if you have awkward geography
> or time constraints.
That you need to be talking to women is pretty much a no-brainer.
Admittedly, how to do that "well" is not a no-brainer.
>
> > > > That's one of the awkward problems with learning social skills: the
> > > >people who are really good at them either a) won't teach, because they
> > > >don't care, b) can't teach, because they aren't conscious of having
> > > >learned. Again, I don't know how to get around this, as there don't
> > > >appear to be any socially skilled teachers who are capable of teaching
> > > >someone with a skill level as low as mine.
> > > So only us socially unskilled here in a.s.s are capable of teaching you?
> > > Oh, horror! :)
> > There are plenty of resources available for the "no brainer" stuff.
> > Getting dressed appropriately is not a secret. Getting fit is not a
> > secret. Anybody who is functional enough to hold down a normal job is
> > functional enough to locate the information that they need to do these
> > things.
>
> Really.. so why would there be whole TV programs devoted to pointing
> out the errors made by functional people with normal jobs when
> dressing themselves?
Then you admit that information is available? That there are readily
accessible sources of information that offer reasonable instruction in
this area?
>
> > Honestly, the thing that amazes me most is the unbridled, if only
> > implicit, OPTIMISM that pervades all of the doom and gloom of certain
> > posters here. To them, the problem is mainly the "how to" of GETTING
> > women. The reality that such a high percentage of women are truly
> > crummy people does not seem to deter.
>
> As has been pointed before, it's more an issue of choice and
> percieved maturity than that of actually urgently wanting a
> relationship.
So it's all for appearances?
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <25414bb1.04051...@posting.google.com>
Trainspotter <trainsp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>mark....@reading.ac.uk (Mark Green) wrote in message
>Why the selective incompetence?
The Peter Principle.
>> No. You've never seen them. Neither have the women. That's the
>> problem.
>
>Show me a guy who has his act together (fit, dresses well, good
>hygiene, etc.) and actually talks to women, but still has no success.
I think I have my act somewhat together - 3+ hour hiking on the
mountain, I'm wearing a tie right now, any bad odours emanating from me
are beyond my ability to detect (knowing that women have lower
thresholds of perception). More than "rarely", but less than
"regularly", I even talk to women, but without making "moves" on them
(no touching or other invasion of "intimate zone", steer clear of SO
topics, etc.), and no success. Okay, in the last ten years (goes back
to high school) there have been three or four times that there has been
unambiguous interest from a woman, but nothing ever happened.
What's the missing piece, Trainspotter? I suspect the single biggest
thing is that I don't go around touching girls, and being pushy enough
to barge my way into their (sexual context) awareness. What do you
think?
>I'm not disputing that such is possible. I am, however, disputing that
>such is likely.
a.s.s and other misfit dredgers might be a good place to find such.
>That you need to be talking to women is pretty much a no-brainer.
>Admittedly, how to do that "well" is not a no-brainer.
And women purposely make it as hard as possible!
>> Really.. so why would there be whole TV programs devoted to pointing
>> out the errors made by functional people with normal jobs when
>> dressing themselves?
>
>Then you admit that information is available?
The information is *advertised* as available. Maybe these shows
*promise* to "show you how to get your woman", but in the end all they,
too, are able to give you is, "To dress well, dress well."
>That there are readily accessible sources of information that offer
>reasonable instruction in this area?
Mark might contest your use of "reasonable".
>> > Honestly, the thing that amazes me most is the unbridled, if only
>> > implicit, OPTIMISM that pervades all of the doom and gloom of certain
>> > posters here. To them, the problem is mainly the "how to" of GETTING
>> > women. The reality that such a high percentage of women are truly
>> > crummy people does not seem to deter.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Care to expand?
- --
http://voyager.abite.co.za/~berndj/ (f1084a555d2098411cff4cefd41d2e2a1c85d18c)
[I can't guarantee the integrity of my mail; I suspect my employer of
mail tampering (adding disclaimers without my authorization). Please
consider only signed text as my words. Verify if you can!]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFAn6ks/FmLrNfLpjMRAir3AKCBwP9COttLuX3miAlnL1+YlnCIMwCfcX2j
2Xjp6wL5pXYKOpBVPGiJxcU=
=3U4a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mark Green
> > > Pretty much. If you knew a guy who had been completely blind from
> > > birth, could you really describe to him what a particular beautiful
> > > girl looks like?
> > Let him touch her.
> Then you acknowledge my point, namely that some things cannot be fully
> conveyed through mere verbal description?
Sure, but the original poster was implying they couldn't be
communicated at all. Nobody has ever said that you are limited to
verbal description.
> And yet somehow you are able to dress for work. Are the work clothes
> you wear randomly selected? Are you rendered helpless by the problem
> of "infinite sets" and such?
No, but at work I am only required to dress acceptably and the rules
are explicit. I am not generally required to impress people with how
I look, and on the occasions when I am, there is only really one
choice for what to wear (a suit). Guys get it so easy for formal wear
compared to gals ;) so I guess the clothing rules for younger people
socialising are their revenge
> I doubt it. In the pictures of you on the internet (that you
> referenced some time ago), you seemed to be dressed rather normally.
> Apparently you DO in fact possess at least some ability to cut through
> the "infinite" set of clothing possibilities, and come up with
> something that is reasonably suited for your particular area of the
> planet in the early 21st century.
> Why the selective incompetence?
The set of clothes acceptable to my gender, time, and area is still
an infinite set. If I can pick *anything* from that set there is no
problem. The problem is when I am required to pick something from
that set which satisfies other conditions which are not clearly
stated.
> > (Probably because she in fact does not know how to choose them, but is
> > just a moderately attractive young female hired for minimum wage to
> > point people to random clothes so that they believe they're
> > fashionable because a moderately attractive young female appeared to
> > like them.)
> The reality is that the typical reputable store will give you good
> service in most cases. Sort of by definition, as "reputable" is going
> to mean that the store enjoys a good reputation in your community.
> And since it is the community that you are seeking to impress...
The store's reputation is not the same as mine.
> > > But that was never the argument. The argument would always turn to the
> > > problem of infinite combinations and things of that nature. But again,
> > > a person who manages to live a more or less functional life (in other
> > > words, those people not institutionalized) obviously is able to
> > > overcome the problem of "infinite choices" ALL the time. You have to
> > > in order to live.
> > Sure, but normally the results of these choices are immediately
> > obvious and suggest refinement. When you fall off your bike, you know
> > which way you fell off and you know how hard you fell. Being socially
> > ignored doesn't give you any feedback.
> It shows you that you may need to make some changes. True, it might
> not point out exactly which changes to make. But that's where the
> no-brainers come in - there are certain attributes that are widely
> recognized as being of social benefit (being fit, dressing well, good
> hygiene, etc.). In a world that provides imperfect feedback, it is
> often wise to get back to basics.
Again, they only appear basic because you have eliminated all the
complexity by hiding it in abstract definition. Being fit is OK, but
you have yet to state what dressing well *is*, and are apparantly
suggested that it is so complex that it cannot even be expressed in
words - hardly a no-brainer. If it is so simple why can't it be
simply stated?
> > Nobody said that the only way of giving advice was talking.
> True. But the medium we are using right now (text on usenet) has
> certain limitations.
Nobody said you had to use only that medium.
> > They're only no-brainers because you hide all the details in the
> > words. Using words like 'well' and 'good' is obviously going to do
> > this - what do the words 'well' and 'good' mean in this context? All
> > they mean "ways that are attractive". So all you're saying in the
> > sentence as a whole is, "good things are good". The question is what
> > makes something become good.
> This is where things break down again. As noted before, there are
> sources that one can use to dress well or get fit. You simply reject
> the sources that "most" people use.
I do not believe that the majority of people have to put absolute
trust in clothing store assistants.
> In other words, that sort of advice would not leave the typical person
> high and dry. It only leaves you high and dry because you have
> convinced yourself that the sales staff, even at a reputable store,
> will not make a good faith effort to help you. Most people don't see
> it that way.
Most people don't have to take the sales staff's word verbatim and
blind. They have at least some skill in identifying which clothes
would look good on them.
> > With being fit, the question is how to motivate people to do it.
> > You can argue that this is all willpower, or that you can't know how
> > to motivate someone else, but both of those are false: if they were
> > true, then people with personal trainers would not get fitter any
> > quicker than anyone else.
> That raises the question of how personal trainers motivate people. I
> doubt that many personal trainers get a lot of response from their
> customers by never meeting them, and simply writing them text messages
> on usenet. Instead, more typically, they meet and spend time in one
> another's presence.
Sure. But I did not mean to imply that I expected you to motivate
me. I only asked you to suggest how the motivation would be
performed, not to actually *do* it.
> > > Of course, these things don't guarantee success. We could certainly
> > > imagine the possibility of a guy who is fit, appropriately dressed,
> > > and has good hygiene...but somehow never succeeds with the ladies.
> > > I've just never seen it.
> > No. You've never seen them. Neither have the women. That's the
> > problem.
> Show me a guy who has his act together (fit, dresses well, good
> hygiene, etc.) and actually talks to women, but still has no success.
A recovering shybie with low social skills. Of course, it's
doubtful that any such person will come forward because most people in
that category would not consider themselves to have their act
together, even if they in fact did.
> > > Point is, there are starting points that should be obvious. Or, even
> > > if not obvious, should be understandable when pointed out. Then, once
> > > a guy is ready to dive in and actually talk to women (that's another
> > > no-brainer...you've got to actually talk to them),
> > How to do that is *not* a no-brainer if you have awkward geography
> > or time constraints.
> That you need to be talking to women is pretty much a no-brainer.
> Admittedly, how to do that "well" is not a no-brainer.
Sure. So there's always a catch of some kind, something incomplete.
> > > There are plenty of resources available for the "no brainer" stuff.
> > > Getting dressed appropriately is not a secret. Getting fit is not a
> > > secret. Anybody who is functional enough to hold down a normal job is
> > > functional enough to locate the information that they need to do these
> > > things.
> > Really.. so why would there be whole TV programs devoted to pointing
> > out the errors made by functional people with normal jobs when
> > dressing themselves?
> Then you admit that information is available? That there are readily
> accessible sources of information that offer reasonable instruction in
> this area?
Yes, that TV show ("What Not To Wear") could count as a source of
information. But my actual point was that if there are so many good
and accessible sources of information, why are "normal" people even
making the mistakes that appear on that show?
> > > Honestly, the thing that amazes me most is the unbridled, if only
> > > implicit, OPTIMISM that pervades all of the doom and gloom of certain
> > > posters here. To them, the problem is mainly the "how to" of GETTING
> > > women. The reality that such a high percentage of women are truly
> > > crummy people does not seem to deter.
> > As has been pointed before, it's more an issue of choice and
> > percieved maturity than that of actually urgently wanting a
> > relationship.
> So it's all for appearances?
Not so much appearance as internal feelings.
Trainspotter
>
> >Why the selective incompetence?
>
> The Peter Principle.
Sounds vaguely familiar, but not quite ringing a bell. Is that the
theory which essentially says you are promoted to the level where you
are incompetent?
>
> >> No. You've never seen them. Neither have the women. That's the
> >> problem.
> >
> >Show me a guy who has his act together (fit, dresses well, good
> >hygiene, etc.) and actually talks to women, but still has no success.
>
> I think I have my act somewhat together - 3+ hour hiking on the
> mountain, I'm wearing a tie right now, any bad odours emanating from me
> are beyond my ability to detect (knowing that women have lower
> thresholds of perception). More than "rarely", but less than
> "regularly", I even talk to women, but without making "moves" on them
> (no touching or other invasion of "intimate zone", steer clear of SO
> topics, etc.), and no success. Okay, in the last ten years (goes back
> to high school) there have been three or four times that there has been
> unambiguous interest from a woman, but nothing ever happened.
If you had unambiguous interest from a woman, then the most likely
reason that nothing ever happened is because you did nothing to make
it happen. Like ask her out.
>
> What's the missing piece, Trainspotter? I suspect the single biggest
> thing is that I don't go around touching girls, and being pushy enough
> to barge my way into their (sexual context) awareness. What do you
> think?
Apparently, you aren't asking these girls out. They express interest,
you keep it on the friendship level. Nothing happens.
As to touching, it's just not my style to touch girls that I am not
already involved with. I realize many of the so called gurus swear by
"kino", but I don't think it's really necessary. Doing that has always
seemed too sleazy for my tastes. Now, if the girl initiates, it's a
different matter (if she touches my arm, I might reciprocate, for
example).
What IS necessary is to "barge" your way into their sexual awareness.
That's the name of the game. They have to know that you are interested
in them as women, not just as friends. That also pretty much forces
their hand: they either have to accept or reject you, for the most
part. If you've got your act together, at least some of them are
likely to accept.
>
> >I'm not disputing that such is possible. I am, however, disputing that
> >such is likely.
>
> a.s.s and other misfit dredgers might be a good place to find such.
Some may exist, but if they do, I'm not seeing many of them. Most
posters admit failure on at least one of the two issues here. Either
they don't have their act together, or they don't even ask girls out.
One or the other. You just don't see many guys who have their act
together AND also try (and by try, I really mean try regularly), yet
come up empty handed. Even you (who, correct me if I'm wrong, but it
seems like you don't actually ask girls out) got at least a handful of
women to express unambiguous interest. Again, that's without even
making romantic overtures.
Who knows what would have happened if you had actually taken risks? I
can make a pretty good guess: you would have gotten rejected some, and
you would have gotten accepted some.
There have been other posters (Largo comes to mind) who have stated
that their situation is so inherently hopeless (presumably due to a
physical issue) that nothing they could do would help. I don't know
Largo's actual situation, but I'll take him at his word.
In any event, Largo isn't denying that it is possible to dress
properly, or to do some of the other "no-brainer" stuff. He's just
stating that in his case it would be pointless because of some other
defeciency or drawback.
That's a very different argument than what Mark is making, namely that
some of this no-brainer stuff is impossible due to "infinite sets" and
universally dishonest sales staff. Which is why I consider Largo's
position reasonable, but Mark's less so.
>
> >That you need to be talking to women is pretty much a no-brainer.
> >Admittedly, how to do that "well" is not a no-brainer.
>
> And women purposely make it as hard as possible!
The more interested they are, the easier they will make it. Which
takes us back to the importance of the no-brainer stuff. When you've
taken care of the basics, it's more likely that a given girl is going
to make it easier for you.
I've "gotten" a ton of women over the years. Some made it easy, some
made it hard. The ones that were really interested made it easy, and I
tend to run into more of the really interested types when I'm also
taking care of the no-brainer basics. When I don't, everything just
gets harder.
>
> >> Really.. so why would there be whole TV programs devoted to pointing
> >> out the errors made by functional people with normal jobs when
> >> dressing themselves?
> >
> >Then you admit that information is available?
>
> The information is *advertised* as available. Maybe these shows
> *promise* to "show you how to get your woman", but in the end all they,
> too, are able to give you is, "To dress well, dress well."
Which is important advice. Again, I'm not much in the fashion sense
department. I don't like dressing "cutting edge" or anything like
that. I don't seek to be at the vanguard of fashion. But I do find
that when I dress better, it makes a substantial difference. A lot of
guys (myself included) tend to neglect these things. For instance, it
makes no sense to me how much emphasis women place on shoes. It just
doesn't really register with me. But they do. So it might behoove a
guy to lose that ratty beat up pair of sneakers, and dress a little
more nicely.
>
> >That there are readily accessible sources of information that offer
> >reasonable instruction in this area?
>
> Mark might contest your use of "reasonable".
He may well, but I have to ask...
What is unreasonable about going into a reputable store and letting
the sales staff outfit you? Now, if a guy is simply too shy to do it,
then I get that. If a guy is a terrible procrastinator and just never
gets around to it, I get that.
But arguing that the advice is useless due to problems of "infinite
sets" and universally disingenuous sales staff? THAT'S unreasonable.
Similarly, arguing that the advice is too vague to be useful is
unreasonable. For instance, let's say you are having automotive
problems. I think it would be unreasonable to tell you "O.K, now you
need to become an expert in car repair. You need to spend countless
hours so that you will know exactly how to fix this car."
It seems far more reasonable to (assuming that we lived in the same
city) say "Here are a couple of repair shops that I've had good
experiences with. They are reputable. Take it to one of them."
It may sound "vague" in a sense, but it's really not. That's one of
the main pieces of information that people trade in casual
conversation: which service providers do a good job, and which do a
crummy job. Most people recognize that they can't be experts at
everything, and that ultimately they are going to have to do some
delegating. I don't see why "dressing well" needs to be any different.
Which is why people who dress well are often asked "Where did you get
that?" The questioner is trying to figure out the vendor...naturally.
It's "valuable" information.
So I think it is one thing to say "That advice is all well and good,
but for whatever reason I won't be implementing it." It's quite
another to say that the advice is somehow useless and inherently
unworkable. It isn't...to a reasonable person.
>
> >> > Honestly, the thing that amazes me most is the unbridled, if only
> >> > implicit, OPTIMISM that pervades all of the doom and gloom of certain
> >> > posters here. To them, the problem is mainly the "how to" of GETTING
> >> > women. The reality that such a high percentage of women are truly
> >> > crummy people does not seem to deter.
>
> I don't understand what you mean by this. Care to expand?
Just that the quality of women has gotten so low that it is becoming
harder and harder to find a good one.
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <25414bb1.04051...@posting.google.com>
Trainspotter <trainsp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Bernd Jendrissek" <ber...@prism.co.za> wrote in message
>> >Why the selective incompetence?
>>
>> The Peter Principle.
>
>Sounds vaguely familiar, but not quite ringing a bell. Is that the
>theory which essentially says you are promoted to the level where you
>are incompetent?
Yes. A corollary is that some people enjoy the jobs they are currently
doing, and do not wish to be promoted to one where they are both unhappy
and incompetent. So they fake incompetence. Mislaid paperwork, missed
deadlines and being late for work every so often are typical examples.
>> >Show me a guy who has his act together (fit, dresses well, good
>> >hygiene, etc.) and actually talks to women, but still has no success.
>>
>> I think I have my act somewhat together - 3+ hour hiking on the
>> mountain, I'm wearing a tie right now, any bad odours emanating from me
>> are beyond my ability to detect (knowing that women have lower
>> thresholds of perception). More than "rarely", but less than
>> "regularly", I even talk to women, but without making "moves" on them
>> (no touching or other invasion of "intimate zone", steer clear of SO
>> topics, etc.), and no success. Okay, in the last ten years (goes back
>> to high school) there have been three or four times that there has been
>> unambiguous interest from a woman, but nothing ever happened.
>
>If you had unambiguous interest from a woman, then the most likely
>reason that nothing ever happened is because you did nothing to make
>it happen. Like ask her out.
Yes - the guy still has to put himself on the line and make himself
vulnerable for teasing, ostracization or a ruined reputation - the
punishment for getting it wrong.
>> What's the missing piece, Trainspotter? I suspect the single biggest
>> thing is that I don't go around touching girls, and being pushy enough
>> to barge my way into their (sexual context) awareness. What do you
>> think?
>
>Apparently, you aren't asking these girls out. They express interest,
>you keep it on the friendship level. Nothing happens.
Something like that. So, what does "asking a girl out" really mean? Do
I just say, "Girlbabe, will you go out with me?" What is the defining
point, if any, of "asking out"?
>As to touching, it's just not my style to touch girls that I am not
>already involved with.
And yet you've been involved with a Victoria's Secrets model? Wow...
You must be hot or something.
>I realize many of the so called gurus swear by "kino", but I don't
>think it's really necessary. Doing that has always seemed too sleazy
>for my tastes.
Yes, the sleaziness also helps prevent me from kinoising them. But I
really must stop judging possible behaviour on their behalf.
>Now, if the girl initiates, it's a different matter (if she touches my
>arm, I might reciprocate, for example).
IMHO, that's how it should be: the woman shows how far she's
comfortable, the man follows. Anything else is (equally IMHO) just a
manifestation of the "rape fantasy" where women want to be "taken" so
that they don't have to feel responsible for what happens (presumably
something they want anyway).
>What IS necessary is to "barge" your way into their sexual awareness.
And being "nice" precludes that. You can't be "nice" *and* be pushy, I
don't think. Like being white and the leader of the Black Panthers.
You *can* be "nice" and barge your way into their awareness, but it
won't be *sexual* awareness. More likely LJBF awareness.
>That's the name of the game. They have to know that you are interested
>in them as women, not just as friends.
Yes. Also precisely the opposite of what women have generally told me
IRL how to act around women.
>That also pretty much forces their hand: they either have to accept or
>reject you, for the most part. If you've got your act together, at
>least some of them are likely to accept.
Hmm, now if only I could manage my shyness enough to go through with
*doing* it (making it clear I want them)...
>Even you (who, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you don't
>actually ask girls out)
I've gotten most of the way there one and a half times; while (very)
low, it's not actually zero. It might have been more if I didn't feel
perpetually "three steps behind" - I often just get the feeling that the
women I'm talking to are always fully in control of the interaction, and
are able to keep me running in train tracks to the point where I realise
I'll never be able to hook up with them. Covert rejection, if you will.
I hope I'm just imagining things; that way I can actually *fix* the
problem and enjoy more success in the future.
>Who knows what would have happened if you had actually taken risks? I
>can make a pretty good guess: you would have gotten rejected some, and
>you would have gotten accepted some.
That's possible. But also unprovable and untestable.
Do you think I don't have *enough* crushes? I've had about 12 so far,
starting at age six. (One-day obsessions over Britney Spears don't
count, right?) IOW not enough to motivate me to go make moves on more
girls?
>There have been other posters (Largo comes to mind) who have stated
>that their situation is so inherently hopeless (presumably due to a
>physical issue) that nothing they could do would help. I don't know
>Largo's actual situation, but I'll take him at his word.
Maybe - but I'd rather not just take him at his word unchallenged. For
*years*, I, too, used to think I would make Quasimoto (sp?) look good.
If untrue, that's a pretty paralysing falsehood to believe.
Maybe Largo et al believe they are ugly based on never seeing women
smile at them? Well guess what - I've only started seeing that happen
(*random* women smiling at me) to me (and not much, for that matter) in
the last year or so.
>In any event, Largo isn't denying that it is possible to dress
>properly, or to do some of the other "no-brainer" stuff. He's just
>stating that in his case it would be pointless because of some other
>defeciency or drawback.
>
>That's a very different argument than what Mark is making, namely that
>some of this no-brainer stuff is impossible due to "infinite sets" and
>universally dishonest sales staff. Which is why I consider Largo's
>position reasonable, but Mark's less so.
That's true - I do think Mark is playing the "Evil Genie" a bit too
often (and I think he has admitted to doing that from time to time).
>> >That you need to be talking to women is pretty much a no-brainer.
>> >Admittedly, how to do that "well" is not a no-brainer.
>>
>> And women purposely make it as hard as possible!
>
>The more interested they are, the easier they will make it.
Yes, but you still have to *recognise* them. Those "obvious" signals
they claim to give out, aren't *at all* obvious to me. Well, it's
gotten better since I bought that book _Superflirt_, but I still have to
run the signal-recognition program intellectually, cross-referencing
observed behaviour with what I read there on on the web.
>Which takes us back to the importance of the no-brainer stuff. When
>you've taken care of the basics, it's more likely that a given girl is
>going to make it easier for you.
Yes - I guess if you can't take care of *all* the problems, at least you
can remove *obstacles*.
>I've "gotten" a ton of women over the years. Some made it easy, some
>made it hard. The ones that were really interested made it easy, and I
>tend to run into more of the really interested types when I'm also
>taking care of the no-brainer basics. When I don't, everything just
>gets harder.
What (concrete examples, please, if you can) do they do to "make it
easy"?
>For instance, it makes no sense to me how much emphasis women place on
>shoes. It just doesn't really register with me. But they do. So it
>might behoove a guy to lose that ratty beat up pair of sneakers, and
>dress a little more nicely.
I also don't understand that myth about "you can tell a lot about a man
by looking at his shoes". Yeah, right. You can tell a lot more about
him by actually *talking* to him, dammit!
>What is unreasonable about going into a reputable store and letting
>the sales staff outfit you? Now, if a guy is simply too shy to do it,
>then I get that. If a guy is a terrible procrastinator and just never
>gets around to it, I get that.
>
>But arguing that the advice is useless due to problems of "infinite
>sets" and universally disingenuous sales staff? THAT'S unreasonable.
At worst, one can ask one's mother to go pick something. Heck, my
mother does that from time to time - she comes home, basically says,
"Here, you need this", and I take her at her word, I pay, and I have
another item of "good clothes". Or he could take a sibling or cousing
along, I'm sure he can get *someone* to just pick something without
having to distrust that person.
>It may sound "vague" in a sense, but it's really not. That's one of the
>main pieces of information that people trade in casual conversation:
>which service providers do a good job, and which do a crummy job.
What do you do if service provider in general simply don't stay around
long enough to build and keep a reputation? Every time a shop comes
under new management, you basically have to reset all the reputation
counters.
>> >> > Honestly, the thing that amazes me most is the unbridled, if
>> >> > only implicit, OPTIMISM that pervades all of the doom and gloom
>> >> > of certain posters here. To them, the problem is mainly the "how
>> >> > to" of GETTING women. The reality that such a high percentage of
>> >> > women are truly crummy people does not seem to deter.
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean by this. Care to expand?
>
>Just that the quality of women has gotten so low that it is becoming
>harder and harder to find a good one.
Is it because men don't *make* them be good? IOW collectively, we'll
eat up all their bull, they get feedback that they can still do well
being as bad as they are, so they let slide even more and get even
worse? How about a dating strike by all "decent" men, then? (Problem:
the sleazeballs will have a ball ruining the few remaining high quality
women.)
- --
http://voyager.abite.co.za/~berndj/ (f1084a555d2098411cff4cefd41d2e2a1c85d18c)
I've generally found that the fastest way to get the right answer on the net
is to confidently assert the answer you believe to be right; those who know
will immediately correct you, while if you just ask, often no answers arrive.
All it requires is a willingness to look bad on occasion.
- Joe Buck on g...@gcc.gnu.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFAoIR5/FmLrNfLpjMRAn2+AKCSeoG+q049iRlsCLJFCLdJ9OUy2gCgnldP
WQ2aZXW72Y7gUfS+plgZVqw=
=i5Oq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mark Green
> "Bernd Jendrissek" <ber...@prism.co.za> wrote in message
> > >Why the selective incompetence?
> > The Peter Principle.
> Sounds vaguely familiar, but not quite ringing a bell. Is that the
> theory which essentially says you are promoted to the level where you
> are incompetent?
Yea, basically. Sadly, I think it's a bit different: it's that many
of these social mores exist in order to enable selection to be
performed. Thus, the required standard of clothing to be
"fashionable" will naturally be raised by society to a level where
some people will be incompetent (as if they weren't, and everyone was
competent, it wouldn't provide a selection criterion)
> > "regularly", I even talk to women, but without making "moves" on them
> > (no touching or other invasion of "intimate zone", steer clear of SO
> > topics, etc.), and no success. Okay, in the last ten years (goes back
> > to high school) there have been three or four times that there has been
> > unambiguous interest from a woman, but nothing ever happened.
> If you had unambiguous interest from a woman, then the most likely
> reason that nothing ever happened is because you did nothing to make
> it happen. Like ask her out.
See, here's the thing. Every time someone calls you on one of these
things, you're always adding just a little more. First it was that
they had to have their act together. Then it was that they also had
to talk to women. Then it was that they had to say a specific thing
to them. Next, when somebody mentions people who have had dates but
never had a relationship, it will probably be that they had to do a
specific thing on the date.
"They're obvious", you say. Well, if they're so obvious, why can't
you work them all out now and post them in one big list instead of
having to nudge the goalposts?
> Some may exist, but if they do, I'm not seeing many of them. Most
> posters admit failure on at least one of the two issues here. Either
> they don't have their act together, or they don't even ask girls out.
> One or the other. You just don't see many guys who have their act
> together AND also try (and by try, I really mean try regularly), yet
> come up empty handed.
Are you aware that here you are pushing the classic negative belief
of shybies that the fact they are shy in the first place indicates
they have no hope, because if they weren't fundamentally broken they'd
never have had the experiences (or lack of experience) that made them
shy?
You seem to be. First you say that anyone who has their act
together and approaches women would most likely get accepted
eventually. This implies that anyone who does approach women but
still fails must not "have their act together". You have said that
any normal person would know how to do this, and implicitly stated
that an normal person would choose to do so. Thus, any person who
does not "have their act together" must be subnormal. You have also
asserted that "dress well" cannot be explained. Which means that the
subnormal people lack information and it can't be given to them; ie,
they are permanently broken.
Is this really what you mean to be saying?
> That's a very different argument than what Mark is making, namely that
> some of this no-brainer stuff is impossible due to "infinite sets" and
> universally dishonest sales staff. Which is why I consider Largo's
> position reasonable, but Mark's less so.
The position I present here is not entirely based on my own
reasoning. It is also influenced by the need to ensure that any
conclusive disproof of it will also require giving me useful
information.
Again, you have yet to address the point of why you call these
things "no-brainers" yet assert that they are too complex to explain.
> > >That you need to be talking to women is pretty much a no-brainer.
> > >Admittedly, how to do that "well" is not a no-brainer.
> > And women purposely make it as hard as possible!
> The more interested they are, the easier they will make it.
That's a recursion. The thing that they make hard, is *getting*
them interested.
> > >> Really.. so why would there be whole TV programs devoted to pointing
> > >> out the errors made by functional people with normal jobs when
> > >> dressing themselves?
> > >Then you admit that information is available?
> > The information is *advertised* as available. Maybe these shows
> > *promise* to "show you how to get your woman", but in the end all they,
> > too, are able to give you is, "To dress well, dress well."
> Which is important advice.
No, it's useless because it is an identity. It might sound amusing
as a kind of Zen koan (like "I ride my bicycle to ride my bicycle"),
but they don't help much at the racks.
> that. I don't seek to be at the vanguard of fashion. But I do find
> that when I dress better, it makes a substantial difference.
And what do you to do "dress better", than you do *not* do when you
"dress worse"?
> > >That there are readily accessible sources of information that offer
> > >reasonable instruction in this area?
> > Mark might contest your use of "reasonable".
> He may well, but I have to ask...
Well, one thing is that you've switched from "reasonable advice" to
"reasonable instruction" and I wonder if you know what the consquences
are. I do not think there's any doubt that clothing assistants do
*not* offer "instruction" on picking clothes. ("Advice" means they
will help you pick today's clothes. "Instruction" would mean they
would teach you how to pick clothes in general so that you wouldn't
need to ask next time.)
> delegating. I don't see why "dressing well" needs to be any different.
> Which is why people who dress well are often asked "Where did you get
> that?" The questioner is trying to figure out the vendor...naturally.
> It's "valuable" information.
Just because they got it from a particular store doesn't mean they
were advised to buy it by the salesperson there.
Marlow
> > garbage and think "how could I apply this?" to each thing that I
> > read.
> > > That's true, but it's not a clear response. The fact that 95% of
> > > advice is useless does not imply that I, if I give advice to someone
> > > else, have a 95% random chance of giving useless advice no matter what
> > > I say. Neither do you.
> > Oh well, you missed the point.
>
> No I didn't. You said I have to read around a lot to find useful
> advice. But I'm saying that, since you're *writing* the advice and
> you know me, you can just skip to the useful 5% straight away.
Well even assuming that I would be willing to spoon feed it to you bit
by bit and spend the needed years of arguing that seems to go along
with that, I'm not sure that I know what the 5% is. I'm more of a
teach a man to fish instead of give him a fish kind of guy anyway, so
with that in mind, I've already given you what I have that I feel may
be of use. And on top of that, since I have no idea how to go about
getting you to actually try anything, approximately 0% of my advice is
going to be useful for you.
>
> > > > This question kind of sums up a lot of the problems you're having. In
> > > > dealing with this stuff there is a very real temptation to want to
> > > > know what to do in every possible contingency before actually trying
> > > > anything. You could spend a lifetime trying to plan for every
> > > > possible fork in the road. It just doesn't work.
> > > But it does. Watch a non-shy person sometime. Even if something
> > > unexpected happens, it's very unlikely that they'll just freeze in
> > > place (smoke pouring from their ears?) with no way of deciding what
> > > action to take next. It's true, you can't plan out for every fork in
> > > the road. What you CAN do is to have a sufficient base of information
> > > that, whichever fork does come up, you can work out what to do on the
> > > fly. And it's clearly possible to have that, because successful
> > > people do.
> > Maybe, but it's doubtful that they sat down and thought about all the
> > various forks in the road before they actually tried to do anything.
> > You try an expirement, maybe you suck at it, but maybe you learn
> > something. The skills you develop may help you to navigate future
> > forks in the road intuitively, I dunno. But if you're unwilling to
> > try even a simple expirement like the one above without worrying about
> > all the future negative possabilities, then I don't know what to tell
> > you.
>
> Posting my picture on an unknown newsgroup to ask for advice is a
> "simple experiment"? Please. I'd probably get ignored or maybe even
> killfiled for posting unsolicited binaries.
Well aside from the obvious solutions that Mickey has already posted
(that you would have come up with on your own pretty easily had you
been trying to find ways to apply this), this pretty much shows that
you're not interested in doing anything other than logical argument
for the sake of logical argument.
I mean really, the risk of getting ignored or killfiled by a group
that you don't even post to anyway is so horrid that you're not
willing to take that chance? If this were actually true, all I could
tell you is to give up now, because there are few things in life that
entail a smaller amount of risk than this.
Also this is more of you creatively coming up with hypothetical
problems before you've even tried something (as I predicted you
would), instead of dealing with these problems when and if they occur.
>
> > > > Since you're not saying that trial and error is useless, then in what
> > > > ways do you think you could apply trial and error in a useful manner?
> > > It could be applied in a useful manner if I had an adequate
> > > refinement system. That is, a system which - after a social situation
> > > - tells me what I ought to do differently at the next one. At the
> > > moment I do not have that. If I go out and get ignored all night, I
> > > do not know if it is because I was badly dressed, because I didn't
> > > approach enough people, or because I used the wrong words in the
> > > approaches I did make.
> > > "Neither do successful people" you say. But at least two of these
> > > (words and dress) are near-infinite search spaces. Without that
> > > feedback, it would be possible to spend a lifetime searching the wrong
> > > one (ie, trying every possible approach line while still dressing
> > > dorky but not realising it) and never find success. If non-shies were
> > > making the decision of which one to search purely randomly, no more
> > > than 50% would succeed (since each person would have a 50% chance of
> > > guessing on the correct one to search). Therefore it is not random;
> > > therefore they DO have a refinement system.
> > Yep, just keep intellectualizing all the problems you might have.
> > Maybe you'll work out an intellectual solution to these hypothetical
> > problems. This doesn't interest me personally, as I prefer to deal
> > with real situations instead of made up ones, but that's just me.
>
> Um, absolutely none of the above is made up.
Yeah, I'm sure those probabilities you've come up with have some super
sound grounding in reality. I don't see any relation of any real life
events that has actually happened to you conveyed by the above.
>
> > > > > Again, I'm not doing it because it's going to eventually work, I'm
> > > > > doing it because it's my only option. If I've crawled through the
> > > > > desert for 20 miles, I might well accept that there's no oasis, but
> > > > > carrying on beats lying on the sand to die.
> > > > It's just peculiar that you've settled on this one pattern of behavior
> > > > as your alternative to doing nothing. You've dismissed reading books
> > > > and doing research on the internet because it's not useful, but by
> > > > your above reasoning reading that stuff *at minimum* can't be any more
> > > > useless than what you've been doing.
> > > The books, and most of the internet content, is static and finite.
> > > The responses I get here are dynamic and theoretically infinite over
> > > time.
> > Ok, if it works for you. I like to poke my head in here every year or
> > two and see how you're doing. In my opinion you're not going to get
> > anywhere as long as you keep clinging to these logical arguments, but
> > that's just one man's opinion.
>
> And ignores the fact that you, since you're one of the providers of
> responses, have some influence on whether I get anywhere or not.
Apparently not enough influence to get you to try even one simple
experiment. I have no idea what else to try until *after* you've come
to the point that you're ready to give up these negative logic games
of yours. Apparently you're not yet at that point.
>
> > > > As I've alluded to above, in this arena of knowledge I've found the
> > > > best way to get people to give good specific advice is to relate to
> > > > them specifically what I've tried and what happened. The more I can
> > > > relate in terms of what I said, how I felt, etc., the better they can
> > > > evaluate what likely mistakes I'm making so I can correct them.
> > > > They're still operating on less than perfect knowledge of the
> > > > situations I'm facing, but that is the nature of communication.
> > > Usually their knowledge of the situations isn't the problem. The
> > > problem is that they have no idea how to communicate their advice in
> > > language that can be understood without knowledge that, if possessed,
> > > would render the advice unnecessary.
> > Well there's no way around that one is there? You've got an air-tight
> > argument.
>
> It's not an argument, it's an observation.
All the same, it's pretty air-tight. I guess it's all just hopeless.
>
> > > > > Why would I want to try different newsgroups? People on other ngs
> > > > > probably will be even more prone to chuck out unresolvable abstract
> > > > > advice because they've not experience social problems themselves, and
> > > > > they'll be even more resistant and hostile to requests for detail.
> > > > Once again, you're basing this on hypothetical situations instead of
> > > > actual real life events.
> > > Um, no, these are actual real life events. Look at the responses that
> > > Robert Maas got when he posted about a newsgroup meet on another ng he
> > > subscribed to. I've been seriously slammed by the editor of a
> > > webforum for asking even the milder kind of question that's attracted
> > > discussion on a.s.s.
> > Ok if you're using robert maas as a typical example of what's likely
> > to happen to you, then I don't know what to tell you.
>
> He was a shybie, so am I.
So you two are exactly alike...amazing. So I guess you also like to
stalk women and were once married to a phillipino lady?
>
> > If you're getting hostile
> > responses, maybe the problem isn't the folks on the other end?
>
> I've never denied that the problem is probably me.
This acknowledgement doesn't seem to mean that you're willing to
actually try something differant (and I've already given you some
examples of other things you could try).
>
> > Maybe
> > asking questions in a differant manner might yield you differant
> > results?
>
> Abstract advice - WHICH different manner?
Advice such as I've already described which I refer to in the next
parenthetical phrase. No wonder you find all advice so abstract,
because if it doesn't contain the entire solution in each sentence,
you just parse it like this so it appears abstract.
>
> >(I've already described one possible alternate approach you
> > could take if you were interested).
>
> The previous description *was* the experiment you're proposing,
> wasn't it?
No, the expirement was an example of how the alternate approach could
be applied. Go back and read the post where I first describe the
expirement.
>So if I got negative responses from that experiment, I'd
> need another different approach?
I've already told you what to do in that case. If you get
unsatisfactory results, at that point in time you can ask "I did
<whatever> and <whatever> happened. Why is that? What do you think I
should do differantly?" and see what responses you get. This has the
unique advantage to limiting your intellectualizing to problems that
you've recently encountered and stops you from wasting endless years
worrying about hypothetical problems that might not ever come to pass.
It seems that you're still hung up in logical argument mode, which is
cool by me, but not a game I'm going to play. If this is the case I
wish you the best of luck and hope that you're not still doing the
same in another year, much less another six or seven. If you actually
would like to improve your life and not play logical argument games
with me, I may be good for another post or two. Either way, I wish
you the best.
Marlow
Trainspotter
> >
> >Sounds vaguely familiar, but not quite ringing a bell. Is that the
> >theory which essentially says you are promoted to the level where you
> >are incompetent?
>
> Yes. A corollary is that some people enjoy the jobs they are currently
> doing, and do not wish to be promoted to one where they are both unhappy
> and incompetent. So they fake incompetence. Mislaid paperwork, missed
> deadlines and being late for work every so often are typical examples.
Right, I remember now. Anyway, I'm uncertain that that the Peter
Principle applies all that neatly to Mark's argument. I remain
unconvinced that someone who can outfit themselves for work would be
"incompetent" to the point where somehow they couldn't walk into an
Eddie Bauer or Abercrombie type store and let the sales lady outfit
them.
However, I do think your corollary could come into play big time.
People will come up with all sorts of excuses to stay in their comfort
zone, up to and including self-sabotage.
> >
> >If you had unambiguous interest from a woman, then the most likely
> >reason that nothing ever happened is because you did nothing to make
> >it happen. Like ask her out.
>
> Yes - the guy still has to put himself on the line and make himself
> vulnerable for teasing, ostracization or a ruined reputation - the
> punishment for getting it wrong.
Possibly. It really depends on the situation. Sometimes you can put
yourself at minimal risk for ostracism or ruined reputation - nobody
is ever going to know that she rejected you. At other times, you do
put yourself at more social risk, though ostracism and ruined
reputation are unlikely to result in most situations. Assuming, of
course, that the guy asked in good faith and was not a jerk about it.
>
> >> What's the missing piece, Trainspotter? I suspect the single biggest
> >> thing is that I don't go around touching girls, and being pushy enough
> >> to barge my way into their (sexual context) awareness. What do you
> >> think?
> >
> >Apparently, you aren't asking these girls out. They express interest,
> >you keep it on the friendship level. Nothing happens.
>
> Something like that. So, what does "asking a girl out" really mean? Do
> I just say, "Girlbabe, will you go out with me?" What is the defining
> point, if any, of "asking out"?
Making it clear in her mind that you...well...want to go out on a date
with her. Usually asking for her number is going to be the socially
recognized way of saying "I'm interested, here's your chance to tell
me that you are interested too." The important thing is simply to clue
her in. It doesn't have to be complicated.
>
> >As to touching, it's just not my style to touch girls that I am not
> >already involved with.
>
> And yet you've been involved with a Victoria's Secrets model? Wow...
> You must be hot or something.
Not really. At my best I'm probably about an "8". Possibly an 8.5, but
I kind of doubt it. Not good looking enough to have gorgeous women
drooling all over me, but good looking enough that I normally don't
get disqualified right off the bat. I'm one of those cases where
personality actually does matter a lot, because my looks alone aren't
strong enough to carry me (with the "9" and "10" crowd, anyway). So
when I walk up, things could really go either way.
Also, I think it is dangerous to judge oneself (or others) by ones
"best performance". I've only dated one perfect "10", and I'm 37 years
old. So while not too shabby, that's not all that great either. Then
again, I haven't really tried with that many "10s" over the years (I
have a VERY strict definition of a true 10, by the way). There aren't
many around, and usually I've been too shy to act on those
opportunities that have come along.
My "normal" dating range is probably at a low of 7.5 to a high of
about 9. I've exceeded that a few times, but not regularly. I only
mention the "extremes" just to note that a lot is possible, even if it
can't be attained on a regular basis.
But anyway, moving on...
What is giving you the impression that you have to be touching girls
that you just met?
>
> >I realize many of the so called gurus swear by "kino", but I don't
> >think it's really necessary. Doing that has always seemed too sleazy
> >for my tastes.
>
> Yes, the sleaziness also helps prevent me from kinoising them. But I
> really must stop judging possible behaviour on their behalf.
Not sure I understand the second sentence. But I think the main thing
is just to start with the basics - just ask the girl out. If you find
that you can't get anywhere that way, then start to worry about "kino"
and other so called smooth moves. But why behave in ways that are
blatantly out of character?
>
> >Now, if the girl initiates, it's a different matter (if she touches my
> >arm, I might reciprocate, for example).
>
> IMHO, that's how it should be: the woman shows how far she's
> comfortable, the man follows. Anything else is (equally IMHO) just a
> manifestation of the "rape fantasy" where women want to be "taken" so
> that they don't have to feel responsible for what happens (presumably
> something they want anyway).
Um...I think that's overreaching a bit. Just because a woman expects a
man to somewhat take the lead, well, I wouldn't call that a variation
of the "rape fantasy". I suppose the argument can be made, but I'm not
sure how useful it is.
>
> >What IS necessary is to "barge" your way into their sexual awareness.
>
> And being "nice" precludes that. You can't be "nice" *and* be pushy, I
> don't think. Like being white and the leader of the Black Panthers.
>
> You *can* be "nice" and barge your way into their awareness, but it
> won't be *sexual* awareness. More likely LJBF awareness.
Whether you can be "nice" is arguable. But you certainly don't have to
be obnoxious or a jerk. Although, I'll freely admit, I've been the
latter many a time. And, sorry to report, women do go for it much more
than when I'm "nice".
My best take on it is that extremely good looking guys can get away
with being nice. Someone can be "nice" when people KNOW HE'S ON TOP.
Then it's endearing.
But for everybody else, it is often taken as a sign of supplication or
weakness.
>
> >That's the name of the game. They have to know that you are interested
> >in them as women, not just as friends.
>
> Yes. Also precisely the opposite of what women have generally told me
> IRL how to act around women.
Don't take advice on this from women. The ASFers have that much right.
I remember, many years ago, talking to a couple of guys at the gym. I
can't remember all the details, but I must have asked one for advice
on weightlifting. One of the guys made a comment that I'll never
forget, "Don't take advice from guys that aren't muscular." Which is
why I say that the best source of advice are guys in your area that
you KNOW are successful with women. They are the best guys to learn
from.
>
> >That also pretty much forces their hand: they either have to accept or
> >reject you, for the most part. If you've got your act together, at
> >least some of them are likely to accept.
>
> Hmm, now if only I could manage my shyness enough to go through with
> *doing* it (making it clear I want them)...
>
> >Even you (who, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you don't
> >actually ask girls out)
>
> I've gotten most of the way there one and a half times; while (very)
> low, it's not actually zero. It might have been more if I didn't feel
> perpetually "three steps behind" - I often just get the feeling that the
> women I'm talking to are always fully in control of the interaction, and
> are able to keep me running in train tracks to the point where I realise
> I'll never be able to hook up with them. Covert rejection, if you will.
>
> I hope I'm just imagining things; that way I can actually *fix* the
> problem and enjoy more success in the future.
Sometimes being introspective is a curse. lol I will say this, in the
food for thought department: most women are far more insecure than you
think, or than they let on. If you can get yourself over the initial
obstacle and actually get to KNOW some girls (in a romantic sense, of
course), then you might find them much less intimidating. I suspect
you would find them a lot less intimidating...your current vantage
point is giving you a distorted view of the situation.
At the risk of being crude, I'll repeat the old Playboy wisecrack:
"Show me a beautiful girl, and I'll show you a guy that's tired of
fucking her."
Sorry for the crudeness...but it's been a long day. But there is a LOT
of truth in that old joke.
>
> >Who knows what would have happened if you had actually taken risks? I
> >can make a pretty good guess: you would have gotten rejected some, and
> >you would have gotten accepted some.
>
> That's possible. But also unprovable and untestable.
History does not reveal its alternatives. But I think we can make some
reasonable guesses based on the information that you have provided.
>
> Do you think I don't have *enough* crushes? I've had about 12 so far,
> starting at age six. (One-day obsessions over Britney Spears don't
> count, right?) IOW not enough to motivate me to go make moves on more
> girls?
Honestly, I can't tell you whether it would be worth it in the end to
take more risks. You could end up in my shoes...thoroughly
disillusioned with the way the world works. Oh, and myself. lol
Remember, my position is and always has been: nobody who posts
regularly on usenet really has a together life. I do not exempt myself
from that at all. All we can do here is learn what we can learn,
imperfect though that may be. Whether to act on it? That's another
question entirely.
>
> >There have been other posters (Largo comes to mind) who have stated
> >that their situation is so inherently hopeless (presumably due to a
> >physical issue) that nothing they could do would help. I don't know
> >Largo's actual situation, but I'll take him at his word.
>
> Maybe - but I'd rather not just take him at his word unchallenged. For
> *years*, I, too, used to think I would make Quasimoto (sp?) look good.
> If untrue, that's a pretty paralysing falsehood to believe.
>
> Maybe Largo et al believe they are ugly based on never seeing women
> smile at them? Well guess what - I've only started seeing that happen
> (*random* women smiling at me) to me (and not much, for that matter) in
> the last year or so.
Well, really, I'm taking him at his word more for the sake of
argument. I wouldn't bet the farm on it. In fact, I'm not sure that I
would lay a ten dollar bet on it. You are correct that some people
have wildly off-base estimates of their looks. But I can concede that
there are some extremely ugly people in the world, and so Largo's
position is valid in the bigger sense. There may well be some people
who, due to the hand that they were dealt, don't have a reasonable
chance at success. Whether Largo is actually one of them is another
question. He says he is, so that's pretty much that.
>
> >In any event, Largo isn't denying that it is possible to dress
> >properly, or to do some of the other "no-brainer" stuff. He's just
> >stating that in his case it would be pointless because of some other
> >defeciency or drawback.
> >
> >That's a very different argument than what Mark is making, namely that
> >some of this no-brainer stuff is impossible due to "infinite sets" and
> >universally dishonest sales staff. Which is why I consider Largo's
> >position reasonable, but Mark's less so.
>
> That's true - I do think Mark is playing the "Evil Genie" a bit too
> often (and I think he has admitted to doing that from time to time).
I think so too.
>
> >> >That you need to be talking to women is pretty much a no-brainer.
> >> >Admittedly, how to do that "well" is not a no-brainer.
> >>
> >> And women purposely make it as hard as possible!
> >
> >The more interested they are, the easier they will make it.
>
> Yes, but you still have to *recognise* them. Those "obvious" signals
> they claim to give out, aren't *at all* obvious to me. Well, it's
> gotten better since I bought that book _Superflirt_, but I still have to
> run the signal-recognition program intellectually, cross-referencing
> observed behaviour with what I read there on on the web.
Who's the author?
Second point: I've never been all that great at reading the signals
either, though I think I'm improving in that department. Of course, my
strategy was to always have the initiative and not really care about
rejection (an aspiration attained somewhat regularly, though certainly
not always). That strategy isn't for everyone, by any means. But if
you play the numbers you can work around an inability to detect the
subtle cues. Of course, you pay in other ways.
>
> >Which takes us back to the importance of the no-brainer stuff. When
> >you've taken care of the basics, it's more likely that a given girl is
> >going to make it easier for you.
>
> Yes - I guess if you can't take care of *all* the problems, at least you
> can remove *obstacles*.
We all have to play the hand that we are dealt. For most of us, we
could play it better.
>
> >I've "gotten" a ton of women over the years. Some made it easy, some
> >made it hard. The ones that were really interested made it easy, and I
> >tend to run into more of the really interested types when I'm also
> >taking care of the no-brainer basics. When I don't, everything just
> >gets harder.
>
> What (concrete examples, please, if you can) do they do to "make it
> easy"?
Well, sometimes it's just as simple as being extra attentive, extra
focused. The smile, the "sparkling" eyes, that sort of thing. Really
TRYING to actively engage in conversation. Or, if I walk away from the
conversation, following me to start the conversation anew. In other
words, either I didn't have to do all the work, or they made the work
much easier. They made it clear that there was no way I was going to
get rejected. By the time I asked for the number, it was a mere
formality. I already knew the answer that I was going to get, and that
answer was going to be "yes".
Now, I have managed to date girls that made it tougher. I "won them
over", somehow. But looking back, it was never worth it. I never
REALLY connected with them, and certainly a good relationship never
came of it. So now, my policy is simple: if a girl gives me the
slightest hard time when I meet her (if she looks bored, doesn't laugh
at my jokes, talks about how "busy" she is, or whatever) I'm just out.
I know that I could "close" a fair percentage of them, but it's just
not worth it.
>
> >For instance, it makes no sense to me how much emphasis women place on
> >shoes. It just doesn't really register with me. But they do. So it
> >might behoove a guy to lose that ratty beat up pair of sneakers, and
> >dress a little more nicely.
>
> I also don't understand that myth about "you can tell a lot about a man
> by looking at his shoes". Yeah, right. You can tell a lot more about
> him by actually *talking* to him, dammit!
Preach on brother. I totally agree. But we have to live in this world,
and it is a damn shame that so many women are so utterly irrational.
>
> >What is unreasonable about going into a reputable store and letting
> >the sales staff outfit you? Now, if a guy is simply too shy to do it,
> >then I get that. If a guy is a terrible procrastinator and just never
> >gets around to it, I get that.
> >
> >But arguing that the advice is useless due to problems of "infinite
> >sets" and universally disingenuous sales staff? THAT'S unreasonable.
>
> At worst, one can ask one's mother to go pick something. Heck, my
> mother does that from time to time - she comes home, basically says,
> "Here, you need this", and I take her at her word, I pay, and I have
> another item of "good clothes". Or he could take a sibling or cousing
> along, I'm sure he can get *someone* to just pick something without
> having to distrust that person.
Sure. But really, it shouldn't be that big of a deal to just trust the
sales lady. MAYBE she'll screw him over, but probably not. I mean, we
aren't talking a huge investment here...just a couple of pairs of
pants and shirts. What's the worst that is likely to happen?
>
> >It may sound "vague" in a sense, but it's really not. That's one of the
> >main pieces of information that people trade in casual conversation:
> >which service providers do a good job, and which do a crummy job.
>
> What do you do if service provider in general simply don't stay around
> long enough to build and keep a reputation? Every time a shop comes
> under new management, you basically have to reset all the reputation
> counters.
Well, if a place is so new that it doesn't have a reputation - then it
doesn't have a reputation. But even in our rather fluid economy, it's
not the case that most businesses are fly by night. For most services,
there are going to be reputable providers.
>
> >> >> > Honestly, the thing that amazes me most is the unbridled, if
> >> >> > only implicit, OPTIMISM that pervades all of the doom and gloom
> >> >> > of certain posters here. To them, the problem is mainly the "how
> >> >> > to" of GETTING women. The reality that such a high percentage of
> >> >> > women are truly crummy people does not seem to deter.
> >>
> >> I don't understand what you mean by this. Care to expand?
> >
> >Just that the quality of women has gotten so low that it is becoming
> >harder and harder to find a good one.
>
> Is it because men don't *make* them be good? IOW collectively, we'll
> eat up all their bull, they get feedback that they can still do well
> being as bad as they are, so they let slide even more and get even
> worse? How about a dating strike by all "decent" men, then? (Problem:
> the sleazeballs will have a ball ruining the few remaining high quality
> women.)
If I thought such a strike would hold, I'd seriously consider joining
it. Something definitely needs to be done. On the micro level, though,
the main thing is to not lower your personal standards. If a girl has
been a degenerate idiot...just don't date her. And let it be known WHY
you aren't dating her. That much, at least, I try to do these days.
Trainspotter
> trainsp...@hotmail.com (Trainspotter) wrote in message news:<25414bb1.04051...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Pretty much. If you knew a guy who had been completely blind from
> > > > birth, could you really describe to him what a particular beautiful
> > > > girl looks like?
> > > Let him touch her.
> > Then you acknowledge my point, namely that some things cannot be fully
> > conveyed through mere verbal description?
>
> Sure, but the original poster was implying they couldn't be
> communicated at all. Nobody has ever said that you are limited to
> verbal description.
No, but people have complained about verbal descriptions as being
useless. They aren't useless, but they do have limitations. If someone
wants to use this particular medium (exchanging text on usenet), they
need to be aware of what can and can't be accomplished here.
You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.
>
> > And yet somehow you are able to dress for work. Are the work clothes
> > you wear randomly selected? Are you rendered helpless by the problem
> > of "infinite sets" and such?
>
> No, but at work I am only required to dress acceptably and the rules
> are explicit. I am not generally required to impress people with how
> I look, and on the occasions when I am, there is only really one
> choice for what to wear (a suit). Guys get it so easy for formal wear
> compared to gals ;) so I guess the clothing rules for younger people
> socialising are their revenge
It's not difficult to go to a reputable store and let the sales lady
outfit you. Or, I should say, it is not difficult in and of itself. It
is not a complicated operation. A person may be too shy to do it, or
afraid to do it for other reasons. But the mission itself is not an
arduous or complex one per se.
>
> > I doubt it. In the pictures of you on the internet (that you
> > referenced some time ago), you seemed to be dressed rather normally.
> > Apparently you DO in fact possess at least some ability to cut through
> > the "infinite" set of clothing possibilities, and come up with
> > something that is reasonably suited for your particular area of the
> > planet in the early 21st century.
> > Why the selective incompetence?
>
> The set of clothes acceptable to my gender, time, and area is still
> an infinite set. If I can pick *anything* from that set there is no
> problem. The problem is when I am required to pick something from
> that set which satisfies other conditions which are not clearly
> stated.
It is not difficult to go to a reputable store and let the sales lady
outfit you.
Is that my mantra? Yes.
>
> > > (Probably because she in fact does not know how to choose them, but is
> > > just a moderately attractive young female hired for minimum wage to
> > > point people to random clothes so that they believe they're
> > > fashionable because a moderately attractive young female appeared to
> > > like them.)
> > The reality is that the typical reputable store will give you good
> > service in most cases. Sort of by definition, as "reputable" is going
> > to mean that the store enjoys a good reputation in your community.
> > And since it is the community that you are seeking to impress...
>
> The store's reputation is not the same as mine.
Um...nobody said it was.
>
> > > > But that was never the argument. The argument would always turn to the
> > > > problem of infinite combinations and things of that nature. But again,
> > > > a person who manages to live a more or less functional life (in other
> > > > words, those people not institutionalized) obviously is able to
> > > > overcome the problem of "infinite choices" ALL the time. You have to
> > > > in order to live.
> > > Sure, but normally the results of these choices are immediately
> > > obvious and suggest refinement. When you fall off your bike, you know
> > > which way you fell off and you know how hard you fell. Being socially
> > > ignored doesn't give you any feedback.
> > It shows you that you may need to make some changes. True, it might
> > not point out exactly which changes to make. But that's where the
> > no-brainers come in - there are certain attributes that are widely
> > recognized as being of social benefit (being fit, dressing well, good
> > hygiene, etc.). In a world that provides imperfect feedback, it is
> > often wise to get back to basics.
>
> Again, they only appear basic because you have eliminated all the
> complexity by hiding it in abstract definition. Being fit is OK, but
> you have yet to state what dressing well *is*, and are apparantly
> suggested that it is so complex that it cannot even be expressed in
> words - hardly a no-brainer. If it is so simple why can't it be
> simply stated?
I never said that what constitutes being well dressed is simple. Maybe
it is, maybe it isn't. Since I don't have a lot of inherent fashion
sense, I really don't know. But I know how to go to a reputable store
and ask the sales lady to help outfit me. I know when, after I do such
a thing, I get compliments.
Doesn't mean I can teach you the nuances of good fashion. I can't.
Just like I can't do auto repairs, much less build a car from scratch.
Hasn't stopped me from driving hundreds and hundreds of thousands of
miles over the years.
I seek to be an expert in my chosen career. In that, my mind operates
like a sponge. In other areas, however, I'm pretty much on a "need to
know" basis. Since I know how to go to a reputable store and ask the
sales lady to outfit me, and since I get compliments on my clothes
when I dress well, then all is well.
>
> > > Nobody said that the only way of giving advice was talking.
> > True. But the medium we are using right now (text on usenet) has
> > certain limitations.
>
> Nobody said you had to use only that medium.
But we are using that one medium right now. Utilize it for what it can
offer, instead of focusing on what it can't. Which is another way of
saying not to push a square peg into a round hole.
If I want to get people's perspectives, arguments and opinions on a
given subject, I might well check usenet. But if I want to learn more
about clothes, I'm going to go somewhere that I can actually see the
clothes, try on the clothes, and talk to someone who knows far more
about clothes than I do. I might come here to ask for a few
suggestions (what stores would be good, what sorts of things to look
out for), but that would be about it. I wouldn't expect someone, just
using this particular medium, to make me understand fashion. I would
instead take what I could from usenet, but also utilize other avenues.
I wouldn't berate their advice as "useless" just because it didn't get
me all the way where I wanted to go.
>
> > > They're only no-brainers because you hide all the details in the
> > > words. Using words like 'well' and 'good' is obviously going to do
> > > this - what do the words 'well' and 'good' mean in this context? All
> > > they mean "ways that are attractive". So all you're saying in the
> > > sentence as a whole is, "good things are good". The question is what
> > > makes something become good.
> > This is where things break down again. As noted before, there are
> > sources that one can use to dress well or get fit. You simply reject
> > the sources that "most" people use.
>
> I do not believe that the majority of people have to put absolute
> trust in clothing store assistants.
Maybe you have less fashion sense than the majority. We all have to
play the hand that is dealt us. Even with no fashion sense at all,
most sales staff at a reputable store will help you in good faith, any
paranoid arguments notwithstanding.
>
> > In other words, that sort of advice would not leave the typical person
> > high and dry. It only leaves you high and dry because you have
> > convinced yourself that the sales staff, even at a reputable store,
> > will not make a good faith effort to help you. Most people don't see
> > it that way.
>
> Most people don't have to take the sales staff's word verbatim and
> blind. They have at least some skill in identifying which clothes
> would look good on them.
So what? Live on the edge a little.
But most people do in fact put themselves into other people's hands a
great deal. Car repair comes to mind. Most people have absolutely no
idea how to fix their car engine. They just know that the car won't
start, or maybe it's making a funny noise. They put themselves
completely in the hands of the auto mechanic. The auto mechanic can
EASILY screw them over, big time. In countless ways, as a matter of
fact.
Are some auto mechanics crooks? Sure. But there are also many
reputable ones that will treat you fairly and do a good job.
Your logic seems to be: "Since I don't know a given area, I can't
delegate or I will be screwed over."
The more reasonable approach is "I don't know an area, so I need to
delegate to someone who does. I could get screwed over, but I'll
minimize that likelihood by going to a reputable establishment."
It's an imperfect world, Mark. There is a chance that things won't
work out. But what's the alternative? Is the alternative satisfying
you?
>
> > > With being fit, the question is how to motivate people to do it.
> > > You can argue that this is all willpower, or that you can't know how
> > > to motivate someone else, but both of those are false: if they were
> > > true, then people with personal trainers would not get fitter any
> > > quicker than anyone else.
> > That raises the question of how personal trainers motivate people. I
> > doubt that many personal trainers get a lot of response from their
> > customers by never meeting them, and simply writing them text messages
> > on usenet. Instead, more typically, they meet and spend time in one
> > another's presence.
>
> Sure. But I did not mean to imply that I expected you to motivate
> me. I only asked you to suggest how the motivation would be
> performed, not to actually *do* it.
Different people have different motivations. I think a full discussion
of something like that, even if I were qualified to provide it, is
somewhat beyond the scope of a usenet post.
What motivated you to do the things in life that you have
accomplished?
>
> > > > Of course, these things don't guarantee success. We could certainly
> > > > imagine the possibility of a guy who is fit, appropriately dressed,
> > > > and has good hygiene...but somehow never succeeds with the ladies.
> > > > I've just never seen it.
> > > No. You've never seen them. Neither have the women. That's the
> > > problem.
> > Show me a guy who has his act together (fit, dresses well, good
> > hygiene, etc.) and actually talks to women, but still has no success.
>
> A recovering shybie with low social skills. Of course, it's
> doubtful that any such person will come forward because most people in
> that category would not consider themselves to have their act
> together, even if they in fact did.
Well, you haven't given me an example of a guy who has his act
together and actually tries with women. Who is this guy who has his
act together, asks women out, and yet has been turned down by every
single one?
I've neither seen nor heard of him.
>
> > > > Point is, there are starting points that should be obvious. Or, even
> > > > if not obvious, should be understandable when pointed out. Then, once
> > > > a guy is ready to dive in and actually talk to women (that's another
> > > > no-brainer...you've got to actually talk to them),
> > > How to do that is *not* a no-brainer if you have awkward geography
> > > or time constraints.
> > That you need to be talking to women is pretty much a no-brainer.
> > Admittedly, how to do that "well" is not a no-brainer.
>
> Sure. So there's always a catch of some kind, something incomplete.
1. Get act together by taking care of the "no brainers" that are
widely recognized as providing social benefits.
2. Ask girls out.
Where is the catch?
I'll tell you where: AFTER you get involved with a girl. That's when
you'll learn all about catches.
>
> > > > There are plenty of resources available for the "no brainer" stuff.
> > > > Getting dressed appropriately is not a secret. Getting fit is not a
> > > > secret. Anybody who is functional enough to hold down a normal job is
> > > > functional enough to locate the information that they need to do these
> > > > things.
> > > Really.. so why would there be whole TV programs devoted to pointing
> > > out the errors made by functional people with normal jobs when
> > > dressing themselves?
> > Then you admit that information is available? That there are readily
> > accessible sources of information that offer reasonable instruction in
> > this area?
>
> Yes, that TV show ("What Not To Wear") could count as a source of
> information. But my actual point was that if there are so many good
> and accessible sources of information, why are "normal" people even
> making the mistakes that appear on that show?
Everybody is on their own learning curve, just for starters. Others
may want to learn more and further refine their look. Many other
reasons as well.
Again, I'll return to my mantra: it is not difficult to go to a
reputable store and let the sales lady outfit you.
This offers a high likelihood of a positive result, at relatively low
risk.
>
> > > > Honestly, the thing that amazes me most is the unbridled, if only
> > > > implicit, OPTIMISM that pervades all of the doom and gloom of certain
> > > > posters here. To them, the problem is mainly the "how to" of GETTING
> > > > women. The reality that such a high percentage of women are truly
> > > > crummy people does not seem to deter.
> > > As has been pointed before, it's more an issue of choice and
> > > percieved maturity than that of actually urgently wanting a
> > > relationship.
> > So it's all for appearances?
>
> Not so much appearance as internal feelings.
Fair enough, but I wonder how those "internal feelings" are going to
be once they have gotten involved with a selfish and hurtful female.
Trainspotter
> trainsp...@hotmail.com (Trainspotter) wrote in message news:<25414bb1.04051...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Bernd Jendrissek" <ber...@prism.co.za> wrote in message
> > > >Why the selective incompetence?
> > > The Peter Principle.
> > Sounds vaguely familiar, but not quite ringing a bell. Is that the
> > theory which essentially says you are promoted to the level where you
> > are incompetent?
>
> Yea, basically. Sadly, I think it's a bit different: it's that many
> of these social mores exist in order to enable selection to be
> performed. Thus, the required standard of clothing to be
> "fashionable" will naturally be raised by society to a level where
> some people will be incompetent (as if they weren't, and everyone was
> competent, it wouldn't provide a selection criterion)
That's a reasonable theory, actually. I just don't see it as
fundamentally refuting the basic principles that have been discussed.
>
> > > "regularly", I even talk to women, but without making "moves" on them
> > > (no touching or other invasion of "intimate zone", steer clear of SO
> > > topics, etc.), and no success. Okay, in the last ten years (goes back
> > > to high school) there have been three or four times that there has been
> > > unambiguous interest from a woman, but nothing ever happened.
> > If you had unambiguous interest from a woman, then the most likely
> > reason that nothing ever happened is because you did nothing to make
> > it happen. Like ask her out.
>
> See, here's the thing. Every time someone calls you on one of these
> things, you're always adding just a little more. First it was that
> they had to have their act together. Then it was that they also had
> to talk to women. Then it was that they had to say a specific thing
> to them. Next, when somebody mentions people who have had dates but
> never had a relationship, it will probably be that they had to do a
> specific thing on the date.
> "They're obvious", you say. Well, if they're so obvious, why can't
> you work them all out now and post them in one big list instead of
> having to nudge the goalposts?
Now you are back to being unreasonable. Come on.
1. Get your act together by taking care of the basics we have been
talking about all along.
2. Ask girls out.
Nobody is nudging the goalposts, at least up to this point.
But as to your "Next, when somebody mentions people who have had dates
but never had a relationship...", that's fair. But I never made any
claims about the transition from dating to full blown relationships.
Obviously, things become a heck of a lot more complicated at that
point. And I have proffered some not too subtle warnings about the
pitfalls that are likely to ensue.
>
> > Some may exist, but if they do, I'm not seeing many of them. Most
> > posters admit failure on at least one of the two issues here. Either
> > they don't have their act together, or they don't even ask girls out.
> > One or the other. You just don't see many guys who have their act
> > together AND also try (and by try, I really mean try regularly), yet
> > come up empty handed.
>
> Are you aware that here you are pushing the classic negative belief
> of shybies that the fact they are shy in the first place indicates
> they have no hope, because if they weren't fundamentally broken they'd
> never have had the experiences (or lack of experience) that made them
> shy?
No, I'm not aware of that. And upon re-reading, I don't agree that my
statements imply any such thing. You are inserting your own chain of
causation, which is not remotely implied or required by what I've
said.
I've simply stated that many guys don't have their act together. I
made no causal analysis as to WHY they don't have their act together.
It could be any of a million reasons, and certainly not exclusively
that they are "fundamentally broken".
I've also stated that many guys don't ask girls out. Again, I didn't
add a causal analysis. This too could be due to any of many reasons,
not just that they "have no hope" or are "fundamentally broken". You
are drawing some rather fantastic conclusions, conclusions that are
not warranted.
In fact, my position is pretty optimistic on one level: I believe that
most guys who get their act together (more or less as we've discussed)
will probably find some "yes" responses when they start asking girls
out.
My pessimism comes later: with so many low quality females out there,
what will happen when they actually get what they seek?
>
> You seem to be. First you say that anyone who has their act
> together and approaches women would most likely get accepted
> eventually. This implies that anyone who does approach women but
> still fails must not "have their act together". You have said that
> any normal person would know how to do this, and implicitly stated
> that an normal person would choose to do so. Thus, any person who
> does not "have their act together" must be subnormal. You have also
> asserted that "dress well" cannot be explained. Which means that the
> subnormal people lack information and it can't be given to them; ie,
> they are permanently broken.
>
> Is this really what you mean to be saying?
Not at all. You are wildly jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
Firstly, my position is not that "anyone" is capable of getting women.
I think most are, but I also accept that there may be some people that
have been dealt such a poor hand of cards that they are unlikely to
succeed.
Secondly, my position is that a normal person would be able to
understand basic concepts like 1)getting on a good nutritional and
exercise program is likely to improve their physical appearance and
2)they should be able to understand the concept of going to a
reputable store and getting the sales lady to outfit them.
A "normal" person may or may not decide to follow through on these
things (and others). They might be shy, discouraged, lazy, or what
have you. Not having one's act together is certainly not proof that
one is "subnormal".
I also never said that "dressing well" can't be explained. But since I
don't have a lot of fashion sense, I'm not the person to do it. But as
someone who delegates, I can get the positive results by going to a
reputable store and letting the sales lady outfit me.
So your wild leap from "doesn't have their act together" to
"permanently broken" is totally unwarranted, and not at all what I
have said.
>
> > That's a very different argument than what Mark is making, namely that
> > some of this no-brainer stuff is impossible due to "infinite sets" and
> > universally dishonest sales staff. Which is why I consider Largo's
> > position reasonable, but Mark's less so.
>
> The position I present here is not entirely based on my own
> reasoning. It is also influenced by the need to ensure that any
> conclusive disproof of it will also require giving me useful
> information.
> Again, you have yet to address the point of why you call these
> things "no-brainers" yet assert that they are too complex to explain.
I've explained it many times...but you are confusing the issue.
The "no-brainer" component is this: there are certain things that are
widely accepted as providing a social benefit. For example, it is a
"no-brainer" that looking better will generally help with women. These
things are also no-brainers in the sense that a normal person can
understand how to accomplish these goals. It doesn't take a great deal
of skill or intelligence to understand how to go into a reputable
store and ask the sales lady for help.
Nobody said you have to become a fashion expert, any more than you
have to become an expert mechanic to take care of your automobile
needs. Doing such would certainly NOT be a no-brainer. But you aren't
required to do those things in order to accomplish the goals that we
have been discussing.
>
> > > >That you need to be talking to women is pretty much a no-brainer.
> > > >Admittedly, how to do that "well" is not a no-brainer.
> > > And women purposely make it as hard as possible!
> > The more interested they are, the easier they will make it.
>
> That's a recursion. The thing that they make hard, is *getting*
> them interested.
Are you making any effort? Of what value is it to sit back and do
nothing, all the while complaining about how hard the going is?
>
> > > >> Really.. so why would there be whole TV programs devoted to pointing
> > > >> out the errors made by functional people with normal jobs when
> > > >> dressing themselves?
> > > >Then you admit that information is available?
> > > The information is *advertised* as available. Maybe these shows
> > > *promise* to "show you how to get your woman", but in the end all they,
> > > too, are able to give you is, "To dress well, dress well."
> > Which is important advice.
>
> No, it's useless because it is an identity. It might sound amusing
> as a kind of Zen koan (like "I ride my bicycle to ride my bicycle"),
> but they don't help much at the racks.
Go to a reputable store and let the sales lady outfit you. There is
nothing "Zen" about that. It is a very practical and tangible course
that a person can take.
>
> > that. I don't seek to be at the vanguard of fashion. But I do find
> > that when I dress better, it makes a substantial difference.
>
> And what do you to do "dress better", than you do *not* do when you
> "dress worse"?
I've already told you. Many times. See above.
>
> > > >That there are readily accessible sources of information that offer
> > > >reasonable instruction in this area?
> > > Mark might contest your use of "reasonable".
> > He may well, but I have to ask...
>
> Well, one thing is that you've switched from "reasonable advice" to
> "reasonable instruction" and I wonder if you know what the consquences
> are. I do not think there's any doubt that clothing assistants do
> *not* offer "instruction" on picking clothes. ("Advice" means they
> will help you pick today's clothes. "Instruction" would mean they
> would teach you how to pick clothes in general so that you wouldn't
> need to ask next time.)
I switched because you switched. You mentioned T.V. programs. Most
fashion oriented T.V. programs purport to instruct on fashion (Like
"Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", and similar bilge).
>
> > delegating. I don't see why "dressing well" needs to be any different.
> > Which is why people who dress well are often asked "Where did you get
> > that?" The questioner is trying to figure out the vendor...naturally.
> > It's "valuable" information.
>
> Just because they got it from a particular store doesn't mean they
> were advised to buy it by the salesperson there.
True. But again, Mark, what are you really arguing for? Do you really
expect to become a fashion expert? Is that what you really want?
If you do, then fine. Since I'm not a fashion expert, I'm not the
person to explain the magical mysteries of dressing well. Instead,
I've pointed out to you a very real, practical and tangible path that
you could take, if you so choose. It's fairly low risk.
In any event, even if you choose not to go that route, you can't just
play it off as "zen" or uselessly vague. It is neither. It is a
practical route that is available to you.
Mark Green
> > to them. Next, when somebody mentions people who have had dates but
> > never had a relationship, it will probably be that they had to do a
> > specific thing on the date.
> > "They're obvious", you say. Well, if they're so obvious, why can't
> > you work them all out now and post them in one big list instead of
> > having to nudge the goalposts?
> Now you are back to being unreasonable. Come on.
> 1. Get your act together by taking care of the basics we have been
> talking about all along.
> 2. Ask girls out.
> but never had a relationship...", that's fair. But I never made any
> claims about the transition from dating to full blown relationships.
> Obviously, things become a heck of a lot more complicated at that
> point. And I have proffered some not too subtle warnings about the
> pitfalls that are likely to ensue.
That is true. But the problem is that without addressing at least
some of those complicated issues, all the other advice is left in
jeopardy too. For example, in my case I did have a few dates a while
back but all of them lead to platonic friendships. The problem is
that I don't know if that occured because of something I did or didn't
do on the date, or if the women involved had already decided (based on
my approach) not to accept me but had accepted the date because they
were bored / interested in the venue rather than the person / too shy
to say no / evil (for DF).
> I've simply stated that many guys don't have their act together. I
> made no causal analysis as to WHY they don't have their act together.
> It could be any of a million reasons, and certainly not exclusively
> that they are "fundamentally broken".
But you have *also* stated that the information that they might need
to "get their act together" cannot be communicated to them. If that's
the case, there is no way for them to get their act together, which
means they are broken.
> Secondly, my position is that a normal person would be able to
> understand basic concepts like 1)getting on a good nutritional and
> exercise program is likely to improve their physical appearance and
> 2)they should be able to understand the concept of going to a
> reputable store and getting the sales lady to outfit them.
As we have seen before, however, that second piece of advice is not
certain to lead to 'dressing well'. Even if you think my other
theories are paranoid, I could (for example) ask for advice from an
attendant at M&S and I can pretty much guarantee you that the result
wouldn't be considered "well dressed".
> Nobody said you have to become a fashion expert, any more than you
> have to become an expert mechanic to take care of your automobile
> needs. Doing such would certainly NOT be a no-brainer. But you aren't
> required to do those things in order to accomplish the goals that we
> have been discussing.
The problem is that you are tacitly asserting that those who are not
fashion experts need to get advice from salespeople on how to dress.
This does not seem to be the case in most clothing stores I've seen.
The average non-shy seems to be able to pick clothes, and then appear
fashionable, without either needing to be an expert or needing to seek
advice. What is it that they know?
> > > > >That you need to be talking to women is pretty much a no-brainer.
> > > > >Admittedly, how to do that "well" is not a no-brainer.
> > > > And women purposely make it as hard as possible!
> > > The more interested they are, the easier they will make it.
> > That's a recursion. The thing that they make hard, is *getting*
> > them interested.
> Are you making any effort? Of what value is it to sit back and do
> nothing, all the while complaining about how hard the going is?
It wasn't me who posted the ".. they make it as hard as possible"
comment. I was only remaking that your response to it was cyclic.
> > > > >That there are readily accessible sources of information that offer
> > > > >reasonable instruction in this area?
> > > > Mark might contest your use of "reasonable".
> > > He may well, but I have to ask...
> > Well, one thing is that you've switched from "reasonable advice" to
> > "reasonable instruction" and I wonder if you know what the consquences
> > are. I do not think there's any doubt that clothing assistants do
> > *not* offer "instruction" on picking clothes. ("Advice" means they
> > will help you pick today's clothes. "Instruction" would mean they
> > would teach you how to pick clothes in general so that you wouldn't
> > need to ask next time.)
> I switched because you switched. You mentioned T.V. programs. Most
> fashion oriented T.V. programs purport to instruct on fashion (Like
> "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", and similar bilge).
Which they presumably claim to do because plenty of people want to
be instructed on fashion. And none of them in fact do so - the advice
given is always specific to that week's guest. Instructions would be
telling you how they worked it out.
Mark Green
> > > > > Pretty much. If you knew a guy who had been completely blind from
> > > > > birth, could you really describe to him what a particular beautiful
> > > > > girl looks like?
> > > > Let him touch her.
> > > Then you acknowledge my point, namely that some things cannot be fully
> > > conveyed through mere verbal description?
> > Sure, but the original poster was implying they couldn't be
> > communicated at all. Nobody has ever said that you are limited to
> > verbal description.
> No, but people have complained about verbal descriptions as being
> useless. They aren't useless, but they do have limitations. If someone
> wants to use this particular medium (exchanging text on usenet), they
> need to be aware of what can and can't be accomplished here.
> You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.
You are not obliged to post purely text.
> > > > (Probably because she in fact does not know how to choose them, but is
> > > > just a moderately attractive young female hired for minimum wage to
> > > > point people to random clothes so that they believe they're
> > > > fashionable because a moderately attractive young female appeared to
> > > > like them.)
> > > The reality is that the typical reputable store will give you good
> > > service in most cases. Sort of by definition, as "reputable" is going
> > > to mean that the store enjoys a good reputation in your community.
> > > And since it is the community that you are seeking to impress...
> > The store's reputation is not the same as mine.
> Um...nobody said it was.
Um, yes you did. You implied that, just because I got clothes from
a store with a good reputation, that *I* would get a good reputation.
> > Again, they only appear basic because you have eliminated all the
> > complexity by hiding it in abstract definition. Being fit is OK, but
> > you have yet to state what dressing well *is*, and are apparantly
> > suggested that it is so complex that it cannot even be expressed in
> > words - hardly a no-brainer. If it is so simple why can't it be
> > simply stated?
> I never said that what constitutes being well dressed is simple.
Yes you did. You said it was a "no-brainer".
> Doesn't mean I can teach you the nuances of good fashion. I can't.
> Just like I can't do auto repairs, much less build a car from scratch.
> Hasn't stopped me from driving hundreds and hundreds of thousands of
> miles over the years.
Sure. But what you are saying is that, because I don't want to
learn to become an auto mechanic, I have to use a chauffeur. (Rather
than just learning to drive.)
> > > > Nobody said that the only way of giving advice was talking.
> > > True. But the medium we are using right now (text on usenet) has
> > > certain limitations.
> > Nobody said you had to use only that medium.
> But we are using that one medium right now. Utilize it for what it can
> offer, instead of focusing on what it can't. Which is another way of
> saying not to push a square peg into a round hole.
You are not restricted to using it.
> If I want to get people's perspectives, arguments and opinions on a
> given subject, I might well check usenet. But if I want to learn more
> about clothes, I'm going to go somewhere that I can actually see the
> clothes, try on the clothes, and talk to someone who knows far more
> about clothes than I do.
If I am asking someone about clothes and they want to answer with
pictures of clothes, they can set up a web page with pictures on it
and post the link.
> > > > > Of course, these things don't guarantee success. We could certainly
> > > > > imagine the possibility of a guy who is fit, appropriately dressed,
> > > > > and has good hygiene...but somehow never succeeds with the ladies.
> > > > > I've just never seen it.
> > > > No. You've never seen them. Neither have the women. That's the
> > > > problem.
> > > Show me a guy who has his act together (fit, dresses well, good
> > > hygiene, etc.) and actually talks to women, but still has no success.
> > A recovering shybie with low social skills. Of course, it's
> > doubtful that any such person will come forward because most people in
> > that category would not consider themselves to have their act
> > together, even if they in fact did.
> Well, you haven't given me an example of a guy who has his act
> together and actually tries with women. Who is this guy who has his
> act together, asks women out, and yet has been turned down by every
> single one?
> I've neither seen nor heard of him.
What are you expecting here? A random name?
> > > > How to do that is *not* a no-brainer if you have awkward geography
> > > > or time constraints.
> > > That you need to be talking to women is pretty much a no-brainer.
> > > Admittedly, how to do that "well" is not a no-brainer.
> > Sure. So there's always a catch of some kind, something incomplete.
> 1. Get act together by taking care of the "no brainers" that are
> widely recognized as providing social benefits.
And which you have acknowledged are not actually no brainers at all.
Trainspotter
> > No, but people have complained about verbal descriptions as being
> > useless. They aren't useless, but they do have limitations. If someone
> > wants to use this particular medium (exchanging text on usenet), they
> > need to be aware of what can and can't be accomplished here.
> > You can't squeeze blood from a turnip.
>
> You are not obliged to post purely text.
That's not the issue we are discussing.
>
> > > > > (Probably because she in fact does not know how to choose them, but is
> > > > > just a moderately attractive young female hired for minimum wage to
> > > > > point people to random clothes so that they believe they're
> > > > > fashionable because a moderately attractive young female appeared to
> > > > > like them.)
> > > > The reality is that the typical reputable store will give you good
> > > > service in most cases. Sort of by definition, as "reputable" is going
> > > > to mean that the store enjoys a good reputation in your community.
> > > > And since it is the community that you are seeking to impress...
> > > The store's reputation is not the same as mine.
> > Um...nobody said it was.
>
> Um, yes you did. You implied that, just because I got clothes from
> a store with a good reputation, that *I* would get a good reputation.
Depends on what you mean by a "good reputation". All I've implied is
that one's appearance is likely to improve. If you want to treat that
as synonomous with gaining a "good reputation", then so be it. But
that's not how I would use that term.
>
> > > Again, they only appear basic because you have eliminated all the
> > > complexity by hiding it in abstract definition. Being fit is OK, but
> > > you have yet to state what dressing well *is*, and are apparantly
> > > suggested that it is so complex that it cannot even be expressed in
> > > words - hardly a no-brainer. If it is so simple why can't it be
> > > simply stated?
> > I never said that what constitutes being well dressed is simple.
>
> Yes you did. You said it was a "no-brainer".
I've explained the "no-brainer" aspects. It's a no-brainer that
improving one's appearance will tend to help with the opposite sex.
It's a no-brainer to go to a reputable store and let the sales lady
outfit you (doing so doesn't require much skill or intelligence or
expertise).
Now, to actually learn enough about fashion to be a relative expert at
it, obviously that would take some real mental effort. Hence, it
wouldn't be a "no-brainer". Just like learning how to be a mechanic in
order to fix your car wouldn't be a no-brainer.
The whole point is that you don't need to become expert in everything.
You can get the positive results by going to reputable service
providers, which requires very little skill or intelligence on your
part.
>
> > Doesn't mean I can teach you the nuances of good fashion. I can't.
> > Just like I can't do auto repairs, much less build a car from scratch.
> > Hasn't stopped me from driving hundreds and hundreds of thousands of
> > miles over the years.
>
> Sure. But what you are saying is that, because I don't want to
> learn to become an auto mechanic, I have to use a chauffeur. (Rather
> than just learning to drive.)
lol Mark, um...no I didn't. I simply pointed out that one doesn't have
to be an expert in a subject in order to get positive results.
>
> > > > > Nobody said that the only way of giving advice was talking.
> > > > True. But the medium we are using right now (text on usenet) has
> > > > certain limitations.
> > > Nobody said you had to use only that medium.
> > But we are using that one medium right now. Utilize it for what it can
> > offer, instead of focusing on what it can't. Which is another way of
> > saying not to push a square peg into a round hole.
>
> You are not restricted to using it.
No, but that's what we are using now.
>
> > If I want to get people's perspectives, arguments and opinions on a
> > given subject, I might well check usenet. But if I want to learn more
> > about clothes, I'm going to go somewhere that I can actually see the
> > clothes, try on the clothes, and talk to someone who knows far more
> > about clothes than I do.
>
> If I am asking someone about clothes and they want to answer with
> pictures of clothes, they can set up a web page with pictures on it
> and post the link.
Yes, they could. But I think it is easier to just go to a reputable
store and let the sales lady outfit you. If you want to learn more
about fashion itself, then go for it. I'm not terribly interested. I'd
rather just get the positive results while expending very little
effort, and move on to something else.
>
> > > > > > Of course, these things don't guarantee success. We could certainly
> > > > > > imagine the possibility of a guy who is fit, appropriately dressed,
> > > > > > and has good hygiene...but somehow never succeeds with the ladies.
> > > > > > I've just never seen it.
> > > > > No. You've never seen them. Neither have the women. That's the
> > > > > problem.
> > > > Show me a guy who has his act together (fit, dresses well, good
> > > > hygiene, etc.) and actually talks to women, but still has no success.
> > > A recovering shybie with low social skills. Of course, it's
> > > doubtful that any such person will come forward because most people in
> > > that category would not consider themselves to have their act
> > > together, even if they in fact did.
> > Well, you haven't given me an example of a guy who has his act
> > together and actually tries with women. Who is this guy who has his
> > act together, asks women out, and yet has been turned down by every
> > single one?
> > I've neither seen nor heard of him.
>
> What are you expecting here? A random name?
Actually, I'm not expecting much of any answer. I don't believe that
many such guys exist, and I doubt you know of any. Which is sort of
the point.
>
> > > > > How to do that is *not* a no-brainer if you have awkward geography
> > > > > or time constraints.
> > > > That you need to be talking to women is pretty much a no-brainer.
> > > > Admittedly, how to do that "well" is not a no-brainer.
> > > Sure. So there's always a catch of some kind, something incomplete.
> > 1. Get act together by taking care of the "no brainers" that are
> > widely recognized as providing social benefits.
>
> And which you have acknowledged are not actually no brainers at all.
It would not be a no-brainer to become expert in them. But the whole
point is that you don't have to become expert in them. Again, going
to a reputable store and letting the sales lady outfit you is not a
task that requires great skill or intelligence.
Trainspotter
> > but never had a relationship...", that's fair. But I never made any
> > claims about the transition from dating to full blown relationships.
> > Obviously, things become a heck of a lot more complicated at that
> > point. And I have proffered some not too subtle warnings about the
> > pitfalls that are likely to ensue.
>
> That is true. But the problem is that without addressing at least
> some of those complicated issues, all the other advice is left in
> jeopardy too. For example, in my case I did have a few dates a while
> back but all of them lead to platonic friendships. The problem is
> that I don't know if that occured because of something I did or didn't
> do on the date, or if the women involved had already decided (based on
> my approach) not to accept me but had accepted the date because they
> were bored / interested in the venue rather than the person / too shy
> to say no / evil (for DF).
Well, again, the transition from date to relationship is more
complicated. I'm sure that if you provided particular scenarios to the
group, that you would get feedback on what went wrong. Also, there is
tons of free dating and relationship advice available all over the
internet. Some of it is decent.
>
> > I've simply stated that many guys don't have their act together. I
> > made no causal analysis as to WHY they don't have their act together.
> > It could be any of a million reasons, and certainly not exclusively
> > that they are "fundamentally broken".
>
> But you have *also* stated that the information that they might need
> to "get their act together" cannot be communicated to them. If that's
> the case, there is no way for them to get their act together, which
> means they are broken.
No, that's not at all what I said. I've said that I personally am not
an expert in the "get their act together" areas. For instance, I just
don't know much about fashion. I don't NEED to know all that much,
because I know how to walk into a reputable store and let the sales
lady help me.
So while I CAN'T teach someone how to be an expert in fashion (because
I'm not an expert), that doesn't mean that the "information that they
might need to get their act together cannot be communicated to them."
If they want to dress well (which is probably the easiest way to
improve appearance), the resources are available for them to do so.
We've gone over these resources many times. The fact that I am not a
fashion expert, and have no interest in becoming a fashion expert,
doesn't impact on that reality at all.
In short, the resources are available for people who want to get their
act together.
>
> > Secondly, my position is that a normal person would be able to
> > understand basic concepts like 1)getting on a good nutritional and
> > exercise program is likely to improve their physical appearance and
> > 2)they should be able to understand the concept of going to a
> > reputable store and getting the sales lady to outfit them.
>
> As we have seen before, however, that second piece of advice is not
> certain to lead to 'dressing well'. Even if you think my other
> theories are paranoid, I could (for example) ask for advice from an
> attendant at M&S and I can pretty much guarantee you that the result
> wouldn't be considered "well dressed".
I'm not familiar with "M&S".
>
> > Nobody said you have to become a fashion expert, any more than you
> > have to become an expert mechanic to take care of your automobile
> > needs. Doing such would certainly NOT be a no-brainer. But you aren't
> > required to do those things in order to accomplish the goals that we
> > have been discussing.
>
> The problem is that you are tacitly asserting that those who are not
> fashion experts need to get advice from salespeople on how to dress.
> This does not seem to be the case in most clothing stores I've seen.
> The average non-shy seems to be able to pick clothes, and then appear
> fashionable, without either needing to be an expert or needing to seek
> advice. What is it that they know?
I guess our experiences differ, because I see sales assistants helping
out a great deal. But as to people that pick out clothes on their own
(and are successful in getting positive results), obviously they have
learned something about fashion. Perhaps by observing others, perhaps
by magazines, who knows? People certainly aren't born with the
knowledge of exactly how to dress in a particular part of the planet
in the 21st century. They learned.
In earlier posts I pointed out all of these methods by which people
learn...but you rejected them. So I gave you the simplest route that
is available - go into a reputable store and get the sales assistant
to help you. They'll do it.
>
> > > > > >That you need to be talking to women is pretty much a no-brainer.
> > > > > >Admittedly, how to do that "well" is not a no-brainer.
> > > > > And women purposely make it as hard as possible!
> > > > The more interested they are, the easier they will make it.
> > > That's a recursion. The thing that they make hard, is *getting*
> > > them interested.
> > Are you making any effort? Of what value is it to sit back and do
> > nothing, all the while complaining about how hard the going is?
>
> It wasn't me who posted the ".. they make it as hard as possible"
> comment. I was only remaking that your response to it was cyclic.
I see what you are saying, but the point still stands. If you do the
"getting your act together" type things, it is more likely that a girl
is going to have some interest.
>
> > > > > >That there are readily accessible sources of information that offer
> > > > > >reasonable instruction in this area?
> > > > > Mark might contest your use of "reasonable".
> > > > He may well, but I have to ask...
> > > Well, one thing is that you've switched from "reasonable advice" to
> > > "reasonable instruction" and I wonder if you know what the consquences
> > > are. I do not think there's any doubt that clothing assistants do
> > > *not* offer "instruction" on picking clothes. ("Advice" means they
> > > will help you pick today's clothes. "Instruction" would mean they
> > > would teach you how to pick clothes in general so that you wouldn't
> > > need to ask next time.)
> > I switched because you switched. You mentioned T.V. programs. Most
> > fashion oriented T.V. programs purport to instruct on fashion (Like
> > "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", and similar bilge).
>
> Which they presumably claim to do because plenty of people want to
> be instructed on fashion. And none of them in fact do so - the advice
> given is always specific to that week's guest. Instructions would be
> telling you how they worked it out.
And if you knew "how they worked it out"...well...you would be a
fashion expert. Are you prepared to make a sustained study of fashion
in order to devlop sufficient expertise to perform such a show? I'm
sure not willing to do that.
If you want to know "how they worked it out"...launch an intensive
study of a given field. Want to know how medical researchers take a
problem and "worked it out"? Easy...become a medical researcher. Go to
the appropriate schools, take the appropriate classes, read the
appropriate books, etc.
Your logic seems to require that you be an expert on all sorts of
things, so you will know how they "worked it out". Unfortunately, life
is short and we all only get 24 hours in a day. This leads us to the
obvious conclusion: delegate if you don't have the time or inclination
to develop sufficient expertise in a given area.
Mark Green
> > > > > service in most cases. Sort of by definition, as "reputable" is going
> > > > > to mean that the store enjoys a good reputation in your community.
> > > > > And since it is the community that you are seeking to impress...
> > > > The store's reputation is not the same as mine.
> > > Um...nobody said it was.
> > Um, yes you did. You implied that, just because I got clothes from
> > a store with a good reputation, that *I* would get a good reputation.
> Depends on what you mean by a "good reputation". All I've implied is
> that one's appearance is likely to improve. If you want to treat that
> as synonomous with gaining a "good reputation", then so be it. But
> that's not how I would use that term.
Depends what you mean by "reputation", I agree.
> > > > Again, they only appear basic because you have eliminated all the
> > > > complexity by hiding it in abstract definition. Being fit is OK, but
> > > > you have yet to state what dressing well *is*, and are apparantly
> > > > suggested that it is so complex that it cannot even be expressed in
> > > > words - hardly a no-brainer. If it is so simple why can't it be
> > > > simply stated?
> > > I never said that what constitutes being well dressed is simple.
> > Yes you did. You said it was a "no-brainer".
> I've explained the "no-brainer" aspects. It's a no-brainer that
> improving one's appearance will tend to help with the opposite sex.
> It's a no-brainer to go to a reputable store and let the sales lady
> outfit you (doing so doesn't require much skill or intelligence or
> expertise).
Well, this seems a very silly thing to say. By this logic, for
example, curing infectious diseases is a "no-brainer" because a) if
you have a disease and want to be better, you obviously need to be
cured and b) it's simple to go to a hospital and let a doctor do it.
But I do not think that many people would use the word "no-brainer" to
describe this..
> Now, to actually learn enough about fashion to be a relative expert at
> it, obviously that would take some real mental effort. Hence, it
> wouldn't be a "no-brainer". Just like learning how to be a mechanic in
> order to fix your car wouldn't be a no-brainer.
But you keep bifurcating here when it isn't necessary. Again, by
your logic, either I have to become a car mechanic ("fashion expert")
or I have to use a chauffeur ("sales lady"), I can't just learn to
drive. An expert in fashion should know what looks good on anyone. I
just want to know what looks good on *me*.
> > > > > > Nobody said that the only way of giving advice was talking.
> > > > > True. But the medium we are using right now (text on usenet) has
> > > > > certain limitations.
> > > > Nobody said you had to use only that medium.
> > > But we are using that one medium right now. Utilize it for what it can
> > > offer, instead of focusing on what it can't. Which is another way of
> > > saying not to push a square peg into a round hole.
> > You are not restricted to using it.
> No, but that's what we are using now.
It doesn't have to be.
> > > Well, you haven't given me an example of a guy who has his act
> > > together and actually tries with women. Who is this guy who has his
> > > act together, asks women out, and yet has been turned down by every
> > > single one?
> > > I've neither seen nor heard of him.
> > What are you expecting here? A random name?
> Actually, I'm not expecting much of any answer. I don't believe that
> many such guys exist, and I doubt you know of any. Which is sort of
> the point.
I've given you a general class as an example - the nervous shybie
who might get accepted for a date but, in fact, the woman has decided
before the date even began that she'll reject him at the end.
Trainspotter
> > > Um, yes you did. You implied that, just because I got clothes from
Mark, we are entering a very strange zone where you now seem to
simultaneously understand and yet not understand the issue. The
analogy you use is perfectly valid...yet you still seem confused.
Using your example, the actual curing of infectious diseases is not a
"no-brainer" at all. If we assume that a doctor is required, obviously
becoming a doctor is not a no-brainer. You would have to go to the
appropriate schools, take the appropriate classes, not to mention
taking and passing the appropriate exams. But as a patient, you don't
have to do anything on that order. All you have to do is go to the
doctor and pay him to cure your infectious disease. THAT is the
no-brainer aspect. Not any moron can BE a doctor, but just about any
moron can GO to the doctor.
Similarly, you don't have to make an intensive study of fashion and
become a fashion expert. To do so would not be a no-brainer. The
no-brainer aspect is that you can simply go to a reputable store and
let the staff outfit you. So your analogy above is fine, and it is
somewhat puzzling that you still seem to find the issue elusive to
grasp.
>
> > Now, to actually learn enough about fashion to be a relative expert at
> > it, obviously that would take some real mental effort. Hence, it
> > wouldn't be a "no-brainer". Just like learning how to be a mechanic in
> > order to fix your car wouldn't be a no-brainer.
>
> But you keep bifurcating here when it isn't necessary. Again, by
> your logic, either I have to become a car mechanic ("fashion expert")
> or I have to use a chauffeur ("sales lady"), I can't just learn to
> drive. An expert in fashion should know what looks good on anyone. I
> just want to know what looks good on *me*.
This is a bit strange. For one thing, bifurcation is absolutely
necessary. In fact, it's sort of the whole point. The idea is that
while learning some skills may be an extremely difficult task, simply
utilizing people with complex skills is often not a difficult task.
That's the bifurcation aspect, and it is absolutely essential. We are
bifurcating the process of becoming an expert (often difficult) from
the process of utilizing an expert (normally not difficult at all).
Again, that's sort of the whole point.
To use your earlier analogy, going to the doctor does not require much
knowledge or skill (a "no-brainer"), but ACTUALLY BECOMING a doctor is
certainly not a no-brainer. The idea is that you don't have to become
a doctor in order to get the benefit of a doctor's knowledge and
skill.
It's just division of labor.
Same with fashion. You don't have to become a fashion expert in order
to dress well. It is a no-brainer to go into a reputable store and
allow the staff to outfit you. It is a no-brainer in the sense that it
doesn't require a great deal of effort, intelligence or skill to do
this.
But in your example immediately above, you are drawing conclusions
that simply don't follow. The fact that I don't know how to repair my
car in no way implies that I therefore can't drive and must use a
chauffeur. Because I need a mechanic doesn't mean that I need a
chauffeur. These are two separate skill sets. I can learn one without
the other (which is in fact my situation, and most people's
situation), or I could learn both, or I could learn neither.
The bottom line point is that you can usually get the benefits of
something in multiple ways. For instance, to get the "benefit" of
having your car repaired, you could become a skilled mechanic (that
takes a lot of effort), OR you can simply delegate by taking your car
to a reputable mechanic (doesn't take a lot of effort, skill or
intelligence).
If you want to dress well, you can either figure out the principles of
fashion well enough that you understand "how to work it out" yourself
(your words), or you can simply go into a reputable store and let the
sales staff outfit you (doesn't take a lot of effort, skill or
intelligence).
Even using your driving example, it ends up in the same place. If you
want to travel by car, you either need to learn to drive (takes at
least some effort, skill and intelligence...though obviously not all
that much, as most people can do it), or you can call a taxi and let
the other person do the driving for you.
It all depends on what you are willing and able to learn. Life is
short, and we all get only 24 hours in a day. So most people recognize
that they can't be experts in everything. In fact, most reasonable
people realize that they can't be experts in the vast majority of
areas. So they delegate. They don't become a doctor...they hire a
doctor. They don't become a mechanic...they hire a mechanic. They
simply aren't willing (or in many cases, able) to learn these things
themselves.
On the other hand, most people are willing to expend the effort to
learn how to drive. Most people want to learn how to drive, and most
do. But some people can't...and so they either bum rides, hire a taxi,
etc. Or forego cars altogether in favor of bikes, riding the bus, or
just good old fashioned walking.
In my case, I love to drive. When I was a kid, there was no question
of my willingness to expend the effort to learn. On the other hand,
I've never had a real interest in fashion. I could probably learn it
fairly well if I tried, but I just don't have the inclination. So I
choose not to, and instead just go to a reputable store and let the
staff outfit me.
>
> > > > > > > Nobody said that the only way of giving advice was talking.
> > > > > > True. But the medium we are using right now (text on usenet) has
> > > > > > certain limitations.
> > > > > Nobody said you had to use only that medium.
> > > > But we are using that one medium right now. Utilize it for what it can
> > > > offer, instead of focusing on what it can't. Which is another way of
> > > > saying not to push a square peg into a round hole.
> > > You are not restricted to using it.
> > No, but that's what we are using now.
>
> It doesn't have to be.
Sure, but that's not the point that we were discussing.
>
> > > > Well, you haven't given me an example of a guy who has his act
> > > > together and actually tries with women. Who is this guy who has his
> > > > act together, asks women out, and yet has been turned down by every
> > > > single one?
> > > > I've neither seen nor heard of him.
> > > What are you expecting here? A random name?
> > Actually, I'm not expecting much of any answer. I don't believe that
> > many such guys exist, and I doubt you know of any. Which is sort of
> > the point.
>
> I've given you a general class as an example - the nervous shybie
> who might get accepted for a date but, in fact, the woman has decided
> before the date even began that she'll reject him at the end.
The standard was a guy "...who has his act together, asks women out,
and yet has been turned down by every single one." I've never seen or
heard of such a guy. I'm not doubting that it is possible that some
may exist, but apparently you can't give me any examples. I don't know
of any personally.
You claim to have given me the example of a "general class", but that
is really no answer at all. Did your hypothetical "nervous shybie"
have his act together? Had he covered all of the basics? Does he ask
girls out with some regularity? And despite all of this, he NEVER
achieves any success with women?
And even if you attribute "yes" answers for your hypothetical guy, he
is still...well...hypothetical. My point was that I don't believe many
such guys exist. If he does, he's mighty elusive.
But to run with your hypo for the sake of argument, who knows? In your
example, "the woman has decided before the date even began that she'll
reject him at the end." Maybe she accepted the date because she was
put on the spot, but wasn't really interested. Or maybe she was
interested, but had other things going on her life that prevented her
from getting involved with him (we never really know what other people
are going through at any given time).
Maybe she just needed the ego boost. Maybe she was thinking that she
could use a free meal out of the situation. Maybe she just didn't have
anything better to do. Maybe she was initially interested, but changed
her mind. Again, who knows?
I've known guys who have met a girl, and things at the initial meeting
seemed to go really well. A date was set up...and the girl didn't
show. The guy was "stood up", as the saying goes. What happened? Well,
NOTHING happened between the guy and the girl. Nothing had happened
BETWEEN THEM to have changed the situation. The girl just didn't show.
Bottom line: guys shouldn't kid themselves into thinking that just
because a girl accepts a date with them that this is proof positive
that she is genuinely interested and available. It's not.
Mark Green
> > example, curing infectious diseases is a "no-brainer" because a) if
> > you have a disease and want to be better, you obviously need to be
> > cured and b) it's simple to go to a hospital and let a doctor do it.
> > But I do not think that many people would use the word "no-brainer" to
> > describe this..
> doctor and pay him to cure your infectious disease. THAT is the
> no-brainer aspect. Not any moron can BE a doctor, but just about any
> moron can GO to the doctor.
Sure. But in spite of that, people do not refer to curing diseases
as a "no-brainer". So I am not quite sure what your justification is
for referring to selecting clothes as a "no-brainer" simply because
*delegating it* is a "no-brainer" - delegating almost anything is a
no-brainer, after all.
> > > Now, to actually learn enough about fashion to be a relative expert at
> > > it, obviously that would take some real mental effort. Hence, it
> > > wouldn't be a "no-brainer". Just like learning how to be a mechanic in
> > > order to fix your car wouldn't be a no-brainer.
> > But you keep bifurcating here when it isn't necessary. Again, by
> > your logic, either I have to become a car mechanic ("fashion expert")
> > or I have to use a chauffeur ("sales lady"), I can't just learn to
> > drive. An expert in fashion should know what looks good on anyone. I
> > just want to know what looks good on *me*.
> This is a bit strange. For one thing, bifurcation is absolutely
> necessary. In fact, it's sort of the whole point. The idea is that
> while learning some skills may be an extremely difficult task, simply
> utilizing people with complex skills is often not a difficult task.
But you're ignoring the actual problem, which is that most people
manage to select decent clothes for themselves without either needing
to be fashion experts or needing to depend on the advice of sales
assistants. There is a middle road, and you seem to be denying its
existance.
> But to run with your hypo for the sake of argument, who knows? In your
> example, "the woman has decided before the date even began that she'll
> reject him at the end." Maybe she accepted the date because she was
> put on the spot, but wasn't really interested. Or maybe she was
> interested, but had other things going on her life that prevented her
> from getting involved with him (we never really know what other people
> are going through at any given time).
> Maybe she just needed the ego boost. Maybe she was thinking that she
> could use a free meal out of the situation. Maybe she just didn't have
> anything better to do. Maybe she was initially interested, but changed
> her mind. Again, who knows?
Sure. They're still all cases in which a may who had his act
together, and asked women out regularly, could fail.
> I've known guys who have met a girl, and things at the initial meeting
> seemed to go really well. A date was set up...and the girl didn't
> show. The guy was "stood up", as the saying goes. What happened? Well,
> NOTHING happened between the guy and the girl. Nothing had happened
> BETWEEN THEM to have changed the situation. The girl just didn't show.
> Bottom line: guys shouldn't kid themselves into thinking that just
> because a girl accepts a date with them that this is proof positive
> that she is genuinely interested and available. It's not.
Sure. And therefore, even if a guy who "has it together" and "asks
women out regularly" DOES get dates, it doesn't mean that he's really
been accepted.
Trainspotter
> > All you have to do is go to the
> > doctor and pay him to cure your infectious disease. THAT is the
> > no-brainer aspect. Not any moron can BE a doctor, but just about any
> > moron can GO to the doctor.
>
> Sure. But in spite of that, people do not refer to curing diseases
> as a "no-brainer". So I am not quite sure what your justification is
> for referring to selecting clothes as a "no-brainer" simply because
> *delegating it* is a "no-brainer" - delegating almost anything is a
> no-brainer, after all.
Well, Mark, that's been the whole point all along. Let's repeat your
words - "...delegating almost anything is a no-brainer, after all."
Exactly.
Nobody is saying that curing an infectious disease is a no-brainer.
But, for the person suffering from the infectious disease, going to
the doctor is typically a no-brainer.
>
> > > > Now, to actually learn enough about fashion to be a relative expert at
> > > > it, obviously that would take some real mental effort. Hence, it
> > > > wouldn't be a "no-brainer". Just like learning how to be a mechanic in
> > > > order to fix your car wouldn't be a no-brainer.
> > > But you keep bifurcating here when it isn't necessary. Again, by
> > > your logic, either I have to become a car mechanic ("fashion expert")
> > > or I have to use a chauffeur ("sales lady"), I can't just learn to
> > > drive. An expert in fashion should know what looks good on anyone. I
> > > just want to know what looks good on *me*.
> > This is a bit strange. For one thing, bifurcation is absolutely
> > necessary. In fact, it's sort of the whole point. The idea is that
> > while learning some skills may be an extremely difficult task, simply
> > utilizing people with complex skills is often not a difficult task.
>
> But you're ignoring the actual problem, which is that most people
> manage to select decent clothes for themselves without either needing
> to be fashion experts or needing to depend on the advice of sales
> assistants. There is a middle road, and you seem to be denying its
> existance.
I'm not denying that there is a middle road. I'm just saying that you
don't have to be on that middle road.
>
> > But to run with your hypo for the sake of argument, who knows? In your
> > example, "the woman has decided before the date even began that she'll
> > reject him at the end." Maybe she accepted the date because she was
> > put on the spot, but wasn't really interested. Or maybe she was
> > interested, but had other things going on her life that prevented her
> > from getting involved with him (we never really know what other people
> > are going through at any given time).
> > Maybe she just needed the ego boost. Maybe she was thinking that she
> > could use a free meal out of the situation. Maybe she just didn't have
> > anything better to do. Maybe she was initially interested, but changed
> > her mind. Again, who knows?
>
> Sure. They're still all cases in which a may who had his act
> together, and asked women out regularly, could fail.
People who have their act together can still fail on a regular basis.
Even many of the most successful "players" admit to an acceptance rate
in the range of twenty percent. Which of course, translates into a
rejection rate of eighty percent.
But that's not the point. The point is that a guy who both has his act
together and actually asks girls out is not likely to end up with ZERO
success with women. Doesn't mean he won't get shot down from time to
time. In fact, it doesn't mean that he won't get shot down an awful
lot. But it does mean that there is a tremendous likelihood that he
will attain at least some success with women (getting a girlfriend, if
that's what he wants).
>
> > I've known guys who have met a girl, and things at the initial meeting
> > seemed to go really well. A date was set up...and the girl didn't
> > show. The guy was "stood up", as the saying goes. What happened? Well,
> > NOTHING happened between the guy and the girl. Nothing had happened
> > BETWEEN THEM to have changed the situation. The girl just didn't show.
> > Bottom line: guys shouldn't kid themselves into thinking that just
> > because a girl accepts a date with them that this is proof positive
> > that she is genuinely interested and available. It's not.
>
> Sure. And therefore, even if a guy who "has it together" and "asks
> women out regularly" DOES get dates, it doesn't mean that he's really
> been accepted.
It doesn't guarantee it. But I've yet to know anyone who fulfills both
of the conditions and yet has never been able to get a girlfriend. You
don't seem to have any non-hypothetical examples of such guys either.
If they are so common, why is that neither of us know of any of them?
If we look at the posters on this board who claim ZERO success with
women, they usually admit to failing at least one of the two
conditions that we have specified. Either that, or they are picky, and
unable to attract the caliber of girls that they want. Even Largo, who
claims that he is operating with such a defeciency that his situation
is hopeless, admits that a couple of women have expressed interest in
him. They just didn't meet his standards.
I suspect that there are few guys who meet both conditions and, over a
substantial period of time (let's say five years), enjoy absolutely no
success with females. Show me a guy who is fit through regular
exercise, dresses nicely, has good hygiene, AND actually asks girls
out with some degree of regularity (let's say at least once a month),
and I just don't see the likelihood of him drawing a goose egg every
time. I'm open to the possibility that such might happen, but I've
certainly never seen it.
Mark Green
> > > All you have to do is go to the
> > > doctor and pay him to cure your infectious disease. THAT is the
> > > no-brainer aspect. Not any moron can BE a doctor, but just about any
> > > moron can GO to the doctor.
> > Sure. But in spite of that, people do not refer to curing diseases
> > as a "no-brainer". So I am not quite sure what your justification is
> > for referring to selecting clothes as a "no-brainer" simply because
> > *delegating it* is a "no-brainer" - delegating almost anything is a
> > no-brainer, after all.
> Well, Mark, that's been the whole point all along. Let's repeat your
> words - "...delegating almost anything is a no-brainer, after all."
> Exactly.
> Nobody is saying that curing an infectious disease is a no-brainer.
> But, for the person suffering from the infectious disease, going to
> the doctor is typically a no-brainer.
Sure. But you have in turn acknowledged MY point - just because
going to the doctor is a no-brainer, doesn't mean that people say that
curing an infectious disease is a no-brainer. Thus, just because
seeking advice from a salesperson on clothes is a no-brainer, doesn't
mean that selecting clothes is a no-brainer - which you seemed to be
asserting it was.
> > > This is a bit strange. For one thing, bifurcation is absolutely
> > > necessary. In fact, it's sort of the whole point. The idea is that
> > > while learning some skills may be an extremely difficult task, simply
> > > utilizing people with complex skills is often not a difficult task.
> > But you're ignoring the actual problem, which is that most people
> > manage to select decent clothes for themselves without either needing
> > to be fashion experts or needing to depend on the advice of sales
> > assistants. There is a middle road, and you seem to be denying its
> > existance.
> I'm not denying that there is a middle road. I'm just saying that you
> don't have to be on that middle road.
I don't have to be. But it seems a preferable option than depending
on sales assistants. At the moment I'm a bit overweight, so it's not
like I could go tomorrow to a sales assistant to get better clothes
and expect results - I still wouldn't have met the criteria for
"having to together" because of the weight, and if I did I'd probably
need new clothes. It's not clear how losing weight is going to happen
but even if it does it will take time, so since I have some time to
learn and prepare, why not use it for that now?
> > > interested, but had other things going on her life that prevented her
> > > from getting involved with him (we never really know what other people
> > > are going through at any given time).
> > > Maybe she just needed the ego boost. Maybe she was thinking that she
> > > could use a free meal out of the situation. Maybe she just didn't have
> > > anything better to do. Maybe she was initially interested, but changed
> > > her mind. Again, who knows?
> > Sure. They're still all cases in which a may who had his act
> > together, and asked women out regularly, could fail.
> People who have their act together can still fail on a regular basis.
> But that's not the point. The point is that a guy who both has his act
> together and actually asks girls out is not likely to end up with ZERO
> success with women. Doesn't mean he won't get shot down from time to
> time. In fact, it doesn't mean that he won't get shot down an awful
> lot. But it does mean that there is a tremendous likelihood that he
> will attain at least some success with women (getting a girlfriend, if
> that's what he wants).
But now you're shifting the goalposts again, because there's a
fairly major difference between what shybies refer to as having zero
success (which generally actually means having the feeling that you
are 'out of the game' with respect to some peer group or other), and
ACTUALLY having zero success (which would include being rejected by
seriously overweight women, prostitutes, grandmothers, starving
Africans etc.)
> > > I've known guys who have met a girl, and things at the initial meeting
> > > seemed to go really well. A date was set up...and the girl didn't
> > Sure. And therefore, even if a guy who "has it together" and "asks
> > women out regularly" DOES get dates, it doesn't mean that he's really
> > been accepted.
> It doesn't guarantee it. But I've yet to know anyone who fulfills both
> of the conditions and yet has never been able to get a girlfriend. You
> don't seem to have any non-hypothetical examples of such guys either.
> If they are so common, why is that neither of us know of any of them?
Because any person who did enter that state would, if they had any
common sense, immediately leave it. If a person asks girls out and
gets zero success, he'll stop asking girls out and no longer match
your criteria. If he "has it together" that only makes it worse
because he'll figure there's something ELSE wrong with him. So, I can
think of specific guys who at one point *did* fit your criteria, but
no longer do, because they stopped asking girls out when it routinely
led to failure.
> conditions that we have specified. Either that, or they are picky, and
> unable to attract the caliber of girls that they want.
This is just the problem of the multiple definitions of "zero
success" coming up again.
Mark Green
> > > but never had a relationship...", that's fair. But I never made any
> > > claims about the transition from dating to full blown relationships.
> > > Obviously, things become a heck of a lot more complicated at that
> > > point. And I have proffered some not too subtle warnings about the
> > > pitfalls that are likely to ensue.
> > do on the date, or if the women involved had already decided (based on
> > my approach) not to accept me but had accepted the date because they
> > were bored / interested in the venue rather than the person / too shy
> > to say no / evil (for DF).
> Well, again, the transition from date to relationship is more
> complicated. I'm sure that if you provided particular scenarios to the
> group, that you would get feedback on what went wrong. Also, there is
> tons of free dating and relationship advice available all over the
> internet. Some of it is decent.
Sure. But again, you've failed to address the actual point, which
was that if you get accepted for a sympathy/fake date - ie, one where
the gal has predecided that she doesn't like you - then that's really
no acceptance at all, just a drawn-out rejection, but you won't know
about it until after the date. You can't divide pre-date and
post-date that easily.
> > > Secondly, my position is that a normal person would be able to
> > > understand basic concepts like 1)getting on a good nutritional and
> > > exercise program is likely to improve their physical appearance and
> > > 2)they should be able to understand the concept of going to a
> > > reputable store and getting the sales lady to outfit them.
> > As we have seen before, however, that second piece of advice is not
> > certain to lead to 'dressing well'. Even if you think my other
> > theories are paranoid, I could (for example) ask for advice from an
> > attendant at M&S and I can pretty much guarantee you that the result
> > wouldn't be considered "well dressed".
> I'm not familiar with "M&S".
M&S is Marks and Spencer. It's a very reputable clothes store in the
UK. But it also has a universal reputation amongst those ages under
35 as being "daggy" and out of fashion. Needless to say, if I visited
M&S to ask for dress help, the sales lady would not have told me that.
Now, I happen to know that fact about M&S but have no such similar
information about the other stores on the high street, so how can I
know which to choose?
> > fashion experts need to get advice from salespeople on how to dress.
> > This does not seem to be the case in most clothing stores I've seen.
> > The average non-shy seems to be able to pick clothes, and then appear
> > fashionable, without either needing to be an expert or needing to seek
> > advice. What is it that they know?
> I guess our experiences differ, because I see sales assistants helping
> out a great deal. But as to people that pick out clothes on their own
> (and are successful in getting positive results), obviously they have
> learned something about fashion. Perhaps by observing others, perhaps
> by magazines, who knows? People certainly aren't born with the
> knowledge of exactly how to dress in a particular part of the planet
> in the 21st century. They learned.
> In earlier posts I pointed out all of these methods by which people
> learn...but you rejected them.
You clearly have not pointed out all the methods by which people
learn, because there must be one that people in fact do use (and which
therefore would not be rejectable by logical argument).
> > > > > > And women purposely make it as hard as possible!
> > > > > The more interested they are, the easier they will make it.
> > > > That's a recursion. The thing that they make hard, is *getting*
> > > > them interested.
> > > Are you making any effort? Of what value is it to sit back and do
> > > nothing, all the while complaining about how hard the going is?
> > It wasn't me who posted the ".. they make it as hard as possible"
> > comment. I was only remaking that your response to it was cyclic.
> I see what you are saying, but the point still stands. If you do the
> "getting your act together" type things, it is more likely that a girl
> is going to have some interest.
Theoretically. In practise, you're in competition with all the guys
who've done the same thing - but, becuase they never had to fix
themselves, almost all of whom have years more experience in that
situation that you...
> > > > are. I do not think there's any doubt that clothing assistants do
> > > > *not* offer "instruction" on picking clothes. ("Advice" means they
> > > > will help you pick today's clothes. "Instruction" would mean they
> > > > would teach you how to pick clothes in general so that you wouldn't
> > > > need to ask next time.)
> > > I switched because you switched. You mentioned T.V. programs. Most
> > > fashion oriented T.V. programs purport to instruct on fashion (Like
> > > "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", and similar bilge).
> > Which they presumably claim to do because plenty of people want to
> > be instructed on fashion. And none of them in fact do so - the advice
> > given is always specific to that week's guest. Instructions would be
> > telling you how they worked it out.
> And if you knew "how they worked it out"...well...you would be a
> fashion expert. Are you prepared to make a sustained study of fashion
> in order to devlop sufficient expertise to perform such a show? I'm
> sure not willing to do that.
Um, all the advisors on the shows are supposedly fashion experts.
You could use the NLP switchback technique to draw their decision
strategies.
Mark Green
> > > garbage and think "how could I apply this?" to each thing that I
> > > read.
> > > > That's true, but it's not a clear response. The fact that 95% of
> > > > advice is useless does not imply that I, if I give advice to someone
> > > > else, have a 95% random chance of giving useless advice no matter what
> > > > I say. Neither do you.
> > > Oh well, you missed the point.
> > No I didn't. You said I have to read around a lot to find useful
> > advice. But I'm saying that, since you're *writing* the advice and
> > you know me, you can just skip to the useful 5% straight away.
> Well even assuming that I would be willing to spoon feed it to you bit
> by bit and spend the needed years of arguing that seems to go along
> with that, I'm not sure that I know what the 5% is. I'm more of a
> teach a man to fish instead of give him a fish kind of guy anyway,
And that's what I'm asking you to do. Giving me a fish would
presumably involve you setting me up with a girl, which has certainly
never been mentioned.
> > > You try an expirement, maybe you suck at it, but maybe you learn
> > > something. The skills you develop may help you to navigate future
> > > forks in the road intuitively, I dunno. But if you're unwilling to
> > > try even a simple expirement like the one above without worrying about
> > > all the future negative possabilities, then I don't know what to tell
> > > you.
> > Posting my picture on an unknown newsgroup to ask for advice is a
> > "simple experiment"? Please. I'd probably get ignored or maybe even
> > killfiled for posting unsolicited binaries.
> I mean really, the risk of getting ignored or killfiled by a group
> that you don't even post to anyway is so horrid that you're not
> willing to take that chance? If this were actually true, all I could
> tell you is to give up now, because there are few things in life that
> entail a smaller amount of risk than this.
It's not an issue of the "risk", it's an issue of that fact that IT
WOULDN'T WORK.
> > > > dorky but not realising it) and never find success. If non-shies were
> > > > making the decision of which one to search purely randomly, no more
> > > > than 50% would succeed (since each person would have a 50% chance of
> > > > guessing on the correct one to search). Therefore it is not random;
> > > > therefore they DO have a refinement system.
> > > Yep, just keep intellectualizing all the problems you might have.
> > > Maybe you'll work out an intellectual solution to these hypothetical
> > > problems. This doesn't interest me personally, as I prefer to deal
> > > with real situations instead of made up ones, but that's just me.
> > Um, absolutely none of the above is made up.
> Yeah, I'm sure those probabilities you've come up with have some super
> sound grounding in reality. I don't see any relation of any real life
> events that has actually happened to you conveyed by the above.
It's impossible to have real life evidence of probability. If you
toss a 6-sided dice and it comes up 5, your common sense might tell
you that there was a 1-in-6 chance of that, but there's nothing about
your experience that's told you that. If the dice was somehow certain
to come up 5, or had actually had a 1-in-2 chance if doing so, your
experience would have been identical.
> > > Ok, if it works for you. I like to poke my head in here every year or
> > > two and see how you're doing. In my opinion you're not going to get
> > > anywhere as long as you keep clinging to these logical arguments, but
> > > that's just one man's opinion.
> > And ignores the fact that you, since you're one of the providers of
> > responses, have some influence on whether I get anywhere or not.
> Apparently not enough influence to get you to try even one simple
> experiment. I have no idea what else to try until *after* you've come
> to the point that you're ready to give up these negative logic games
> of yours. Apparently you're not yet at that point.
See my other response to Trainspotter for the reason why I'm not
willing to try the experiment.
> > > > > relate in terms of what I said, how I felt, etc., the better they can
> > > > > evaluate what likely mistakes I'm making so I can correct them.
> > > > > They're still operating on less than perfect knowledge of the
> > > > > situations I'm facing, but that is the nature of communication.
> > > > Usually their knowledge of the situations isn't the problem. The
> > > > problem is that they have no idea how to communicate their advice in
> > > > language that can be understood without knowledge that, if possessed,
> > > > would render the advice unnecessary.
> > > Well there's no way around that one is there? You've got an air-tight
> > > argument.
> > It's not an argument, it's an observation.
> All the same, it's pretty air-tight. I guess it's all just hopeless.
As it obviously isn't, or no-one would succeed.
> > > > > > they'll be even more resistant and hostile to requests for detail.
> > > > > Once again, you're basing this on hypothetical situations instead of
> > > > > actual real life events.
> > > > Um, no, these are actual real life events. Look at the responses that
> > > > Robert Maas got when he posted about a newsgroup meet on another ng he
> > > > subscribed to. I've been seriously slammed by the editor of a
> > > > webforum for asking even the milder kind of question that's attracted
> > > > discussion on a.s.s.
> > > Ok if you're using robert maas as a typical example of what's likely
> > > to happen to you, then I don't know what to tell you.
> > He was a shybie, so am I.
> So you two are exactly alike...amazing. So I guess you also like to
> stalk women and were once married to a phillipino lady?
Nothing that Robert did in the example I referred to had anything to
do with stalking or being married. He acted like a typical shybie.
Marlow
> pdfj...@yahoo.com (Marlow) wrote in message news:<b79c52e4.04051...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > garbage and think "how could I apply this?" to each thing that I
> > > > read.
> > > > > That's true, but it's not a clear response. The fact that 95% of
> > > > > advice is useless does not imply that I, if I give advice to someone
> > > > > else, have a 95% random chance of giving useless advice no matter what
> > > > > I say. Neither do you.
> > > > Oh well, you missed the point.
> > > No I didn't. You said I have to read around a lot to find useful
> > > advice. But I'm saying that, since you're *writing* the advice and
> > > you know me, you can just skip to the useful 5% straight away.
> > Well even assuming that I would be willing to spoon feed it to you bit
> > by bit and spend the needed years of arguing that seems to go along
> > with that, I'm not sure that I know what the 5% is. I'm more of a
> > teach a man to fish instead of give him a fish kind of guy anyway,
>
> And that's what I'm asking you to do. Giving me a fish would
> presumably involve you setting me up with a girl, which has certainly
> never been mentioned.
That is one possible interpretation. The interpretation I'm making is
that I think it would be beneficial for you to learn how to come up
with your own advice instead of depending on others to come up with
every little thing and ram it down your throat by years of argument.
The best way I can come up with for you to learn to do this is to stop
the silly logical arguments, and instead of figuring out why stuff
won't work, try to think about how you could make it work.
>
> > > > You try an expirement, maybe you suck at it, but maybe you learn
> > > > something. The skills you develop may help you to navigate future
> > > > forks in the road intuitively, I dunno. But if you're unwilling to
> > > > try even a simple expirement like the one above without worrying about
> > > > all the future negative possabilities, then I don't know what to tell
> > > > you.
> > > Posting my picture on an unknown newsgroup to ask for advice is a
> > > "simple experiment"? Please. I'd probably get ignored or maybe even
> > > killfiled for posting unsolicited binaries.
> > I mean really, the risk of getting ignored or killfiled by a group
> > that you don't even post to anyway is so horrid that you're not
> > willing to take that chance? If this were actually true, all I could
> > tell you is to give up now, because there are few things in life that
> > entail a smaller amount of risk than this.
>
> It's not an issue of the "risk", it's an issue of that fact that IT
> WOULDN'T WORK.
This should be easy enough for you to prove by actually doing the
expirement. Your statement that it wouldn't work is not grounded in
reality. I say it would work, you say it wouldn't...I know of no
other reliable way to see which of us is right other than by you doing
the expirement. It might even be fun.
> > > > > dorky but not realising it) and never find success. If non-shies were
> > > > > making the decision of which one to search purely randomly, no more
> > > > > than 50% would succeed (since each person would have a 50% chance of
> > > > > guessing on the correct one to search). Therefore it is not random;
> > > > > therefore they DO have a refinement system.
> > > > Yep, just keep intellectualizing all the problems you might have.
> > > > Maybe you'll work out an intellectual solution to these hypothetical
> > > > problems. This doesn't interest me personally, as I prefer to deal
> > > > with real situations instead of made up ones, but that's just me.
> > > Um, absolutely none of the above is made up.
> > Yeah, I'm sure those probabilities you've come up with have some super
> > sound grounding in reality. I don't see any relation of any real life
> > events that has actually happened to you conveyed by the above.
>
> It's impossible to have real life evidence of probability. If you
> toss a 6-sided dice and it comes up 5, your common sense might tell
> you that there was a 1-in-6 chance of that, but there's nothing about
> your experience that's told you that. If the dice was somehow certain
> to come up 5, or had actually had a 1-in-2 chance if doing so, your
> experience would have been identical.
So in other words your arguments are pretty impossible to ground in
reality. By your own admission, you're just pulling probabilities out
of thin air.
>
> > > > Ok, if it works for you. I like to poke my head in here every year or
> > > > two and see how you're doing. In my opinion you're not going to get
> > > > anywhere as long as you keep clinging to these logical arguments, but
> > > > that's just one man's opinion.
> > > And ignores the fact that you, since you're one of the providers of
> > > responses, have some influence on whether I get anywhere or not.
> > Apparently not enough influence to get you to try even one simple
> > experiment. I have no idea what else to try until *after* you've come
> > to the point that you're ready to give up these negative logic games
> > of yours. Apparently you're not yet at that point.
>
> See my other response to Trainspotter for the reason why I'm not
> willing to try the experiment.
Because you're overweight, I guess that means that dressing well won't
do anything to improve your appearance is what you're saying. If
that's really the case, then stop worrying about what dressing well
means, just paste and clip this discussion into your hard drive, and
when you lose weight you'll know how to arrive at the solution.
Problem solved.
>
> > > > > > relate in terms of what I said, how I felt, etc., the better they can
> > > > > > evaluate what likely mistakes I'm making so I can correct them.
> > > > > > They're still operating on less than perfect knowledge of the
> > > > > > situations I'm facing, but that is the nature of communication.
> > > > > Usually their knowledge of the situations isn't the problem. The
> > > > > problem is that they have no idea how to communicate their advice in
> > > > > language that can be understood without knowledge that, if possessed,
> > > > > would render the advice unnecessary.
> > > > Well there's no way around that one is there? You've got an air-tight
> > > > argument.
> > > It's not an argument, it's an observation.
> > All the same, it's pretty air-tight. I guess it's all just hopeless.
>
> As it obviously isn't, or no-one would succeed.
Then stop arguing for things you don't actually believe.
>
> > > > > > > they'll be even more resistant and hostile to requests for detail.
> > > > > > Once again, you're basing this on hypothetical situations instead of
> > > > > > actual real life events.
> > > > > Um, no, these are actual real life events. Look at the responses that
> > > > > Robert Maas got when he posted about a newsgroup meet on another ng he
> > > > > subscribed to. I've been seriously slammed by the editor of a
> > > > > webforum for asking even the milder kind of question that's attracted
> > > > > discussion on a.s.s.
> > > > Ok if you're using robert maas as a typical example of what's likely
> > > > to happen to you, then I don't know what to tell you.
> > > He was a shybie, so am I.
> > So you two are exactly alike...amazing. So I guess you also like to
> > stalk women and were once married to a phillipino lady?
>
> Nothing that Robert did in the example I referred to had anything to
> do with stalking or being married. He acted like a typical shybie.
Look Mark, if you want to keep pretending to be some computer program
with no independant knowledge of the outside world, that can't handle
ANY type of possible ambiguity or figure out how to apply or come up
with advice unless every bit of the algorhythem has been worked out,
then you're in luck. There are people working on Artificial
Intelligence programs all over the world as we speak. There are
people way smarter than I am already working on these exact problems.
The only downside is that AI is pretty primitive right now so it may
take fifty years or so if we want to be optimistic. The plus side is
that this doesn't require you to do anything other than sit back and
wait.
On the other hand, if you want any chance of learning something a
little sooner than that, I think you'll have to take a differant
approach. The first step is to start acting like a human and give up
these logical arguments (and thank god you didn't know how to argue
logically yet when you were trying to learn how to walk, otherwise
you'd still be crawling and arguing about how impossible it is).
All the people I know that have actually improved have this in common:
they expirement and THEN (and only then) learn from the expirements.
If you're using your old I'm a computer program role-play game, then
it's impossible to determine WHAT to expirement or how to learn. If
you try being a human, the process kind of will happen naturally after
a while of doing the expirements. One thing that has helped me is
Taoism. If you get into the Tao it kind of helps you go with the flow
instead of analyzing everything to death. I can recommend a good copy
of the Tao Te Ching if you're interested. There are other ways around
this also, I am sure. The first step for you is going to be to give
up the logical argument frame of mind. Figure out a way to do this.
You may have to stop posting here for a while until you've broken the
habit strongly enough not to give in to the temptation, just because
most posters are used to it and will continue to want to argue with
you because you have trained them to do so.
Marlow
Trainspotter
> > Well, again, the transition from date to relationship is more
> > complicated. I'm sure that if you provided particular scenarios to the
> > group, that you would get feedback on what went wrong. Also, there is
> > tons of free dating and relationship advice available all over the
> > internet. Some of it is decent.
>
> Sure. But again, you've failed to address the actual point, which
> was that if you get accepted for a sympathy/fake date - ie, one where
> the gal has predecided that she doesn't like you - then that's really
> no acceptance at all, just a drawn-out rejection, but you won't know
> about it until after the date. You can't divide pre-date and
> post-date that easily.
Well, I've acknowledged what appears to be your "actual point". I
agree with you that just because a woman accepts a date doesn't mean
that she is interested. I've said this many times. She could have
accepted the date for any number of possible reasons. Genuine interest
or even openness to the guy is only one such reason. So, in a way, she
"accepted" the date...but has no intention of accepting the guy in a
romantic sense.
This point is not in dispute. Is there some further question or
concern about this idea that I missed?
But moving on to a practical issue - you've got to walk before you can
run. Getting that first date is critical, even though there is no
guarantee that much will develop from it. Even if you do make the
transition from first date to regular dating, and then perhaps to
"relationship" mode...the whole thing can fall apart at any time. Even
if it goes all the way to marriage, the chances are substantial that
it will still end, in that case requiring a formal divorce.
But again, a guy has to start somewhere. No point in worrying too much
about relationships and marriage until you can actually get a date.
>
> > > > Secondly, my position is that a normal person would be able to
> > > > understand basic concepts like 1)getting on a good nutritional and
> > > > exercise program is likely to improve their physical appearance and
> > > > 2)they should be able to understand the concept of going to a
> > > > reputable store and getting the sales lady to outfit them.
> > > As we have seen before, however, that second piece of advice is not
> > > certain to lead to 'dressing well'. Even if you think my other
> > > theories are paranoid, I could (for example) ask for advice from an
> > > attendant at M&S and I can pretty much guarantee you that the result
> > > wouldn't be considered "well dressed".
> > I'm not familiar with "M&S".
>
> M&S is Marks and Spencer. It's a very reputable clothes store in the
> UK. But it also has a universal reputation amongst those ages under
> 35 as being "daggy" and out of fashion. Needless to say, if I visited
> M&S to ask for dress help, the sales lady would not have told me that.
> Now, I happen to know that fact about M&S but have no such similar
> information about the other stores on the high street, so how can I
> know which to choose?
Perhaps the same ways you found out about M&S. You are aware of the
reputation of that store, and how it is not viewed favorably by the
under 35 set. So you get the basic concept of reputation, and how
certain stores are favored over others by certain demographics. Ask
around. That might be a good question to post on this board, as there
seem to be a disproportionate number of lim... I mean U.K. people
here.
But seriously, Mark. That's really what I have done. I just ask
around. It's a pretty simple subject to bring up to someone, and it's
not likely to be seen as a strange or weird question. Just a casual
"Nice shirt. I need to buy a couple myself...where did you get that?"
Then take it from there if you want more information, or just leave it
at that if all you care about is ascertaining the particular vendor.
>
> > > fashion experts need to get advice from salespeople on how to dress.
> > > This does not seem to be the case in most clothing stores I've seen.
> > > The average non-shy seems to be able to pick clothes, and then appear
> > > fashionable, without either needing to be an expert or needing to seek
> > > advice. What is it that they know?
> > I guess our experiences differ, because I see sales assistants helping
> > out a great deal. But as to people that pick out clothes on their own
> > (and are successful in getting positive results), obviously they have
> > learned something about fashion. Perhaps by observing others, perhaps
> > by magazines, who knows? People certainly aren't born with the
> > knowledge of exactly how to dress in a particular part of the planet
> > in the 21st century. They learned.
> > In earlier posts I pointed out all of these methods by which people
> > learn...but you rejected them.
>
> You clearly have not pointed out all the methods by which people
> learn, because there must be one that people in fact do use (and which
> therefore would not be rejectable by logical argument).
I can't claim to have provided an exhaustive list. But I've given the
main courses of action that I have seen people take. It is possible
that there is some great secret out there that has been denied me, but
I don't think that's terribly likely.
Instead, it really seems like it's mostly a case of "monkey see,
monkey do" type behavior. People ask one another "Where did you get
that?", that sort of thing. People hear other people's comments,
comments which might be making fun of a particular store or type of
fashion. Then of course there are magazines, websites, you name it. If
you are fortunate, maybe you have a friend that has good fashion sense
that can help out. Or you can rely on the sales staff.
As I've said, I will ask around to find out which is the best store
for my purposes. With that established, I go to the store and rely
very heavily on the sales staff.
>
> > > > > > > And women purposely make it as hard as possible!
> > > > > > The more interested they are, the easier they will make it.
> > > > > That's a recursion. The thing that they make hard, is *getting*
> > > > > them interested.
> > > > Are you making any effort? Of what value is it to sit back and do
> > > > nothing, all the while complaining about how hard the going is?
> > > It wasn't me who posted the ".. they make it as hard as possible"
> > > comment. I was only remaking that your response to it was cyclic.
> > I see what you are saying, but the point still stands. If you do the
> > "getting your act together" type things, it is more likely that a girl
> > is going to have some interest.
>
> Theoretically. In practise, you're in competition with all the guys
> who've done the same thing - but, becuase they never had to fix
> themselves, almost all of whom have years more experience in that
> situation that you...
Well, I'm not so sure about the "years more experience" argument. I'll
admit that it is possibly a factor. But even if it is, what's the
alternative? Do nothing?
Everybody's got to start somewhere.
And again, one thing you seem to neglect is that a man's abilities may
rise and FALL a number of times over the course of his lifetime. Take,
for instance, self-confidence. There are plenty of guys who at one
time in their lives were extremely self-confident. Then some
devastating experience happens and, all too often, the self-confidence
goes. Maybe it was a bad relationship or marriage, maybe it was a
career of financial setback. This happens all the time. Then, perhaps,
they get on the right track and begin to regain some of the
self-confidence. Maybe they will ultimately surpass their prior highs.
Then again, maybe not.
Same thing with experience. Now, in a sense, once you have an
experience, you "always" have it. It happened, and short of getting
into a time machine, there is no changing the fact that it happened.
But the benefits of experience are often highly perishable. Again, you
can have a guy who was pretty successful with women, and then gets
married. He begins to live a whole new lifestyle. Ten to fifteen years
down the road, he gets a divorce. How valuable are his dim memories of
dating almost two decades before? A lot of these guys seem to complain
about not having a very good idea of what to do now that they are
thrust back on the singles scene.
I suppose my real point is that it might not be entirely accurate to
view this particular situation as a straight linear progression. Some
of the skills, and certainly the mindset, behind what we are talking
about seem to be quite perishable.
So don't assume that because you have limited experience with dating
that you are at a unique disadvantage. Plenty of people are operating
with problems in this area, and many of them technically have the
"experience". And many of them are older than you.
>
> > > > > are. I do not think there's any doubt that clothing assistants do
> > > > > *not* offer "instruction" on picking clothes. ("Advice" means they
> > > > > will help you pick today's clothes. "Instruction" would mean they
> > > > > would teach you how to pick clothes in general so that you wouldn't
> > > > > need to ask next time.)
> > > > I switched because you switched. You mentioned T.V. programs. Most
> > > > fashion oriented T.V. programs purport to instruct on fashion (Like
> > > > "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", and similar bilge).
> > > Which they presumably claim to do because plenty of people want to
> > > be instructed on fashion. And none of them in fact do so - the advice
> > > given is always specific to that week's guest. Instructions would be
> > > telling you how they worked it out.
> > And if you knew "how they worked it out"...well...you would be a
> > fashion expert. Are you prepared to make a sustained study of fashion
> > in order to devlop sufficient expertise to perform such a show? I'm
> > sure not willing to do that.
>
> Um, all the advisors on the shows are supposedly fashion experts.
> You could use the NLP switchback technique to draw their decision
> strategies.
I'm not familiar with that technique. The point is that if you know
"how they worked it out", then you would presumably have their level
of expertise in that particular task. If you want to learn an area
well enough that you know "how to work it out", then great. You will
essentially become an "expert", at least of sorts, in that particular
area.
But you don't NEED to do that. Delegating is a lot easier. Since life
is short and all of us only get 24 hours in a day, most people realize
that they need to do a lot of delegating. Let someone else invest
their time in figuring "how to work it out". As I've said, I have no
particular interest in fashion. It seems shallow and insipid to me.
But since it doesn't seem to cost that much more to dress "well" as
opposed to "non-descript", and since appearance can be very important
in society, it does seem worth it to make at least some effort. With
proper delegating, that effort does not need to be all that great.
Trainspotter
> > Well, Mark, that's been the whole point all along. Let's repeat your
> > words - "...delegating almost anything is a no-brainer, after all."
> > Exactly.
> > Nobody is saying that curing an infectious disease is a no-brainer.
> > But, for the person suffering from the infectious disease, going to
> > the doctor is typically a no-brainer.
>
> Sure. But you have in turn acknowledged MY point - just because
> going to the doctor is a no-brainer, doesn't mean that people say that
> curing an infectious disease is a no-brainer. Thus, just because
> seeking advice from a salesperson on clothes is a no-brainer, doesn't
> mean that selecting clothes is a no-brainer - which you seemed to be
> asserting it was.
I've never disputed that point. I'm not saying that learning about
clothes is a no-brainer. However, it is pretty much of a no-brainer to
go to the store and let the sales lady outfit you. To do such doesn't
require much intelligence or skill. Now, for an extremely shy person,
even doing that much might be a very tall order. But the problem would
be the person's shyness, not the complexity of the task.
>
> > > > This is a bit strange. For one thing, bifurcation is absolutely
> > > > necessary. In fact, it's sort of the whole point. The idea is that
> > > > while learning some skills may be an extremely difficult task, simply
> > > > utilizing people with complex skills is often not a difficult task.
> > > But you're ignoring the actual problem, which is that most people
> > > manage to select decent clothes for themselves without either needing
> > > to be fashion experts or needing to depend on the advice of sales
> > > assistants. There is a middle road, and you seem to be denying its
> > > existance.
> > I'm not denying that there is a middle road. I'm just saying that you
> > don't have to be on that middle road.
>
> I don't have to be. But it seems a preferable option than depending
> on sales assistants. At the moment I'm a bit overweight, so it's not
> like I could go tomorrow to a sales assistant to get better clothes
> and expect results - I still wouldn't have met the criteria for
> "having to together" because of the weight, and if I did I'd probably
> need new clothes. It's not clear how losing weight is going to happen
> but even if it does it will take time, so since I have some time to
> learn and prepare, why not use it for that now?
What, use the time to learn more about how to dress? I guess you can,
if you are willing to do it. I suppose it is just a matter of how much
interest you have in the subject. My only point is that you aren't
required to learn enough about this to get on the "middle road". It's
an option, not a requirement.
The simplest way to go is, as I have said many times, just go to a
reputable store and let the staff outfit you. If you want to delve
deeper, you can. You just don't have to in order to reach the
appropriate goal.
>
> > > > interested, but had other things going on her life that prevented her
> > > > from getting involved with him (we never really know what other people
> > > > are going through at any given time).
> > > > Maybe she just needed the ego boost. Maybe she was thinking that she
> > > > could use a free meal out of the situation. Maybe she just didn't have
> > > > anything better to do. Maybe she was initially interested, but changed
> > > > her mind. Again, who knows?
> > > Sure. They're still all cases in which a may who had his act
> > > together, and asked women out regularly, could fail.
> > People who have their act together can still fail on a regular basis.
> > But that's not the point. The point is that a guy who both has his act
> > together and actually asks girls out is not likely to end up with ZERO
> > success with women. Doesn't mean he won't get shot down from time to
> > time. In fact, it doesn't mean that he won't get shot down an awful
> > lot. But it does mean that there is a tremendous likelihood that he
> > will attain at least some success with women (getting a girlfriend, if
> > that's what he wants).
>
> But now you're shifting the goalposts again, because there's a
> fairly major difference between what shybies refer to as having zero
> success (which generally actually means having the feeling that you
> are 'out of the game' with respect to some peer group or other), and
> ACTUALLY having zero success (which would include being rejected by
> seriously overweight women, prostitutes, grandmothers, starving
> Africans etc.)
I don't see how I am shifting goalposts. My position hasn't really
changed.
On the one hand, I believe that it is highly unlikely that a guy who
BOTH has his act together and regularly asks girls out will be
rejected all the time. I've never seen an example of this. But since I
can accept that such men possibly exist, I use the term "unlikely" as
opposed to "absolutely no chance".
But your distinction between different definitions of "zero success"
is valid. Your second example of "zero success" - getting rejected by
the lowest of the low - is of course the most extreme example. I
suspect that INCREDIBLY few men out there would literally be rejected
by even the most bottom of bottom-feeders.
But, and this sort of gets back to some of Largo's arguments, you may
have a larger group of guys who are simply not attracted to what they
can realistically expect to reel in. Sure, they might not get turned
down by some morbidly obese starving prostitute...but they don't want
a morbidly obese starving prostitute. I'll leave alone any conflict
between being morbidly obese and starving.
So where does that leave us? At the end of the day, every guy is
going to have his own standards. Whether he can actually reel in
someone who meets his standards is the million dollar issue...for him
anyway.
So the real question for you is...what are YOU looking for? Is it
necessary for you that the girl rate a 9 or 10 in the looks
department? How about an 8? How about a 5, or a 4? How important is
intelligence, values, etc. to you?
The more restrictive your standards, the smaller the pool of women
upon which to draw. Since I don't know what your standards are, I
can't really know how "rare of a bird" you hope to catch. I assume
that you aren't looking to hook up with the lowest of the low
categories...but beyond that I have no idea what you are shooting for.
And, as I've said before, at the end of the day you have to actually
start to ask women out. Not just one, but preferably LOTS of them.
That's the only way you are going to be able to start figuring out
what your market value is at that point in time. Only by trying are
you going to start getting a history of results.
Using myself as an example. At this particular point in my life, I can
attract 6's and 7's without much problem at all. 6's and 7's actually
hit on me with some degree of regularity, without me putting in any
effort whatsoever. 8's, much less so. No 9's or 10's have hit on me at
this particular point in my life (which I'm defining as the last
several months).
But again, that is RIGHT NOW. A year ago, it was a little different. A
year from now, it will probably be different again. But my basic
situation appears to be "Trainspotter is fairly strong with women
until you hit the 8 level. From that point on, the going gets tough."
When I'm in top shape (which I'm not right now), my range would
probably go up another point. Maybe two. I don't think there is
anything I could ever realistically do to have perfect 10's drooling
over me. Even at my very best, I simply wouldn't be that good looking.
On the other hand, if at my best I asked enough 10's out, there is no
doubt that the occasional one would go for me. I'd just have to be
willing to deal with that many more rejections. But right now I don't
really have the confidence to do that, so it's a non-issue.
Point is that, as callous as it sounds, we all have our "sexual market
value". This value can, and usually does, move up and down over the
course of a man's life. I say men because, in the female's case, her
sexual market value almost always starts off very high and then
gradually declines with age. With men it's a little more complicated,
and their values tend to rise and fall, perhaps a number of times over
the course of their lives.
>
> > > > I've known guys who have met a girl, and things at the initial meeting
> > > > seemed to go really well. A date was set up...and the girl didn't
> > > Sure. And therefore, even if a guy who "has it together" and "asks
> > > women out regularly" DOES get dates, it doesn't mean that he's really
> > > been accepted.
> > It doesn't guarantee it. But I've yet to know anyone who fulfills both
> > of the conditions and yet has never been able to get a girlfriend. You
> > don't seem to have any non-hypothetical examples of such guys either.
> > If they are so common, why is that neither of us know of any of them?
>
> Because any person who did enter that state would, if they had any
> common sense, immediately leave it. If a person asks girls out and
> gets zero success, he'll stop asking girls out and no longer match
> your criteria. If he "has it together" that only makes it worse
> because he'll figure there's something ELSE wrong with him. So, I can
> think of specific guys who at one point *did* fit your criteria, but
> no longer do, because they stopped asking girls out when it routinely
> led to failure.
That's fair enough. I don't know the guys you mention, so I can't say
for sure whether they truly had their "acts together" or not. I've
never known a guy who was fit, dressed well, good hygiene, etc., AND
asked a lot of girls out, and yet got rejected by every one of them.
I've just never seen it or heard of any specific examples. But, as
I've said all along, I'm not denying it's possible. For instance, a
guy could have standards so high that he effectively prices himself
out of the market. Without more facts, I just can't know what happened
with the guys that you mention. Maybe they didn't really have their
acts together. Maybe they only asked a few girls out and gave up, even
though they would have succeeded by persisting. Maybe they set their
standards too high. I just can't know.
I think what it comes down to is that each guy has to decide his
bottom line threshold...the point below which he will not go. The
point below which he has no desire to go. If, after getting his act
together and asking a lot of girls out, he just can't achieve any
success with women that meet his standards...then that's that. He
either needs to evaluate his standards again, improve his
attractiveness, or just bow out of the game because he's concluded
that he can't reasonably get what he wants...and doesn't want what he
can reasonably get.
The last option is pretty much a variation of Largo's position, and
over time he did a pretty good job of persuading me to come over to
his point of view.
That's an individual judgement call.
But I do think that most guys would have a hard time accepting the
"Largo Option" when they are still young. It seems like a guy would
owe it to himself to at least TRY, and try properly. That means having
his act together, and then asking a goodly number of women out. If
after putting forth serious effort he determines that he just can't
get what he wants...well, as long as he's genuinely tried, I can't say
that I blame him for bowing out of the game.
But in the real world, MOST guys are not limiting themselves to the
true hotties (which I consider 8's and up). Most guys are satisfied
with a reasonably attractive girl, even if she is pretty much average
or plain. And most guys who both have their act together and ask out a
significant number of such women are going to achieve a level of
success...success by THEIR standards.
>
> > conditions that we have specified. Either that, or they are picky, and
> > unable to attract the caliber of girls that they want.
>
> This is just the problem of the multiple definitions of "zero
> success" coming up again.
Yes, it is. But the bottom line is that you have to come up with YOUR
definition of success. Then you can start to develop a better idea of
how to achieve it.
Mark Green
> > > > advice. But I'm saying that, since you're *writing* the advice and
> > > > you know me, you can just skip to the useful 5% straight away.
> > > Well even assuming that I would be willing to spoon feed it to you bit
> > > by bit and spend the needed years of arguing that seems to go along
> > > with that, I'm not sure that I know what the 5% is. I'm more of a
> > > teach a man to fish instead of give him a fish kind of guy anyway,
> > And that's what I'm asking you to do. Giving me a fish would
> > presumably involve you setting me up with a girl, which has certainly
> > never been mentioned.
> That is one possible interpretation. The interpretation I'm making is
> that I think it would be beneficial for you to learn how to come up
> with your own advice instead of depending on others to come up with
> every little thing and ram it down your throat by years of argument.
> The best way I can come up with for you to learn to do this is to stop
> the silly logical arguments, and instead of figuring out why stuff
> won't work, try to think about how you could make it work.
But they are not pure logical arguments - they are based on logical
explanations of experiences I've had. If I stop arguing them, then
they problems they refer to will still exist.
> > > > > Maybe you'll work out an intellectual solution to these hypothetical
> > > > > problems. This doesn't interest me personally, as I prefer to deal
> > > > > with real situations instead of made up ones, but that's just me.
> > > > Um, absolutely none of the above is made up.
> > > Yeah, I'm sure those probabilities you've come up with have some super
> > > sound grounding in reality. I don't see any relation of any real life
> > > events that has actually happened to you conveyed by the above.
> > It's impossible to have real life evidence of probability. If you
> > toss a 6-sided dice and it comes up 5, your common sense might tell
> > you that there was a 1-in-6 chance of that, but there's nothing about
> > your experience that's told you that. If the dice was somehow certain
> > to come up 5, or had actually had a 1-in-2 chance if doing so, your
> > experience would have been identical.
> So in other words your arguments are pretty impossible to ground in
> reality. By your own admission, you're just pulling probabilities out
> of thin air.
Which doesn't denigrate them because, as mentioned above, *ALL*
probabilities are pulled out of thin air. They have to be!
> > > > > Well there's no way around that one is there? You've got an air-tight
> > > > > argument.
> > > > It's not an argument, it's an observation.
> > > All the same, it's pretty air-tight. I guess it's all just hopeless.
> > As it obviously isn't, or no-one would succeed.
> Then stop arguing for things you don't actually believe.
I do believe it, but at the same time I know my belief is wrong.
Just like somebody may know that thousands of planes land safely every
day but still believe that flying is extremely dangerous. Sadly, the
brain is perfectly capable of holding discongruous propositions and
does not automatically cancel the two with each other.
> > > > > Ok if you're using robert maas as a typical example of what's likely
> > > > > to happen to you, then I don't know what to tell you.
> > > > He was a shybie, so am I.
> > > So you two are exactly alike...amazing. So I guess you also like to
> > > stalk women and were once married to a phillipino lady?
> > Nothing that Robert did in the example I referred to had anything to
> > do with stalking or being married. He acted like a typical shybie.
> Look Mark, if you want to keep pretending to be some computer program
> with no independant knowledge of the outside world, that can't handle
> ANY type of possible ambiguity or figure out how to apply or come up
> with advice unless every bit of the algorhythem has been worked out,
> then you're in luck.
That is not the case. What I object to is advice on social skills
which leaves open ambiguities which would require existing social
skills to resolve. If the ambiguities can be resolved by other skills
that I do have, that would be fine, but if they require social skills
to resolve then the recursion renders the advice meaningless.
> On the other hand, if you want any chance of learning something a
> little sooner than that, I think you'll have to take a differant
> approach. The first step is to start acting like a human and give up
> these logical arguments (and thank god you didn't know how to argue
> logically yet when you were trying to learn how to walk, otherwise
> you'd still be crawling and arguing about how impossible it is).
I've acknowleged multiple times that learning to walk would
logically be quite easy, because of the wealth of feedback available
when you fall (you know exactly why you fell, and it's relatively easy
to know how to avoid it next time). Neither of these is the case for
social failure.
The problem with the "give up logic" argument is that logic *is* in
the real world whether you like it or not. You can't just look away
from something and pretend it's not there.
Mark Green
> > going to the doctor is a no-brainer, doesn't mean that people say that
> > curing an infectious disease is a no-brainer. Thus, just because
> > seeking advice from a salesperson on clothes is a no-brainer, doesn't
> > mean that selecting clothes is a no-brainer - which you seemed to be
> > asserting it was.
> I've never disputed that point. I'm not saying that learning about
> clothes is a no-brainer.
You have disputed it - because you did, at one point, say that
"dressing well is a no-brainer". The fact that delegating this to a
sales lady is a no-brainer does not blow through onto the general
definition of "dressing well" - if it did, it would do the same for
"curing infectious diseases" as well.
> > like I could go tomorrow to a sales assistant to get better clothes
> > and expect results - I still wouldn't have met the criteria for
> > "having to together" because of the weight, and if I did I'd probably
> > need new clothes. It's not clear how losing weight is going to happen
> > but even if it does it will take time, so since I have some time to
> > learn and prepare, why not use it for that now?
> What, use the time to learn more about how to dress? I guess you can,
> if you are willing to do it. I suppose it is just a matter of how much
> interest you have in the subject. My only point is that you aren't
> required to learn enough about this to get on the "middle road". It's
> an option, not a requirement.
I am still concerned that depending on the sales lady would be
problematic when I came - for example - to discuss clothes with
others. For example, I could not (as in your sample below) ask
someone wearing trendy clothes where they bought them from - because I
would have no way of knowing that their clothes were trendy, as I
never learned how to work that out. The only way I'd have of knowing
if someone's clothes were trendy would be if they were the same as
mine (because "the sales lady dressed me trendily" would be the only
knowledge I had and even that would be unproven)
> > > lot. But it does mean that there is a tremendous likelihood that he
> > > will attain at least some success with women (getting a girlfriend, if
> > > that's what he wants).
> > But now you're shifting the goalposts again, because there's a
> > fairly major difference between what shybies refer to as having zero
> > success (which generally actually means having the feeling that you
> > are 'out of the game' with respect to some peer group or other), and
> > ACTUALLY having zero success (which would include being rejected by
> > seriously overweight women, prostitutes, grandmothers, starving
> > Africans etc.)
> So where does that leave us? At the end of the day, every guy is
> going to have his own standards. Whether he can actually reel in
> someone who meets his standards is the million dollar issue...for him
> anyway.
Sure. So the question must then come: when you say "it is unlikely
that a guy who had his act together, and actually asked women out,
would have zero success" then what definition of "zero success" are
you using?
If you use the literal definition, then you've already ackonwledged
that the majority of guys wouldn't have zero success by that
definition. If you use the subjective definition, then you have to
allow for what standards the guys in your sample would have.
> > > It doesn't guarantee it. But I've yet to know anyone who fulfills both
> > > of the conditions and yet has never been able to get a girlfriend. You
> > > don't seem to have any non-hypothetical examples of such guys either.
> > > If they are so common, why is that neither of us know of any of them?
> > Because any person who did enter that state would, if they had any
> > common sense, immediately leave it. If a person asks girls out and
> > gets zero success, he'll stop asking girls out and no longer match
> > your criteria. If he "has it together" that only makes it worse
> > because he'll figure there's something ELSE wrong with him. So, I can
> > think of specific guys who at one point *did* fit your criteria, but
> > no longer do, because they stopped asking girls out when it routinely
> > led to failure.
> That's fair enough. I don't know the guys you mention, so I can't say
> for sure whether they truly had their "acts together" or not.
Which is what I *knew* your argument would be if I did name anybody.
So, how about a bit more detail on the "acts together" part? How
much % muscle/fat mass? How many people must like their clothes?
> with the guys that you mention. Maybe they didn't really have their
> acts together. Maybe they only asked a few girls out and gave up, even
> though they would have succeeded by persisting. Maybe they set their
> standards too high. I just can't know.
But I don't think it fits. Because in both of the cases of guys I
know who did this, they attracted *extremely* attractive women at one
point, lost them (generally due to circumstances rather than a
relationship breakdown) and then utterly struck out with everyone else
and gave up. And no - it *isn't* becuase they were only asking out
women of the same "standard" of the one they initially attracted -
I've known that they asked out others.
> But in the real world, MOST guys are not limiting themselves to the
> true hotties (which I consider 8's and up). Most guys are satisfied
> with a reasonably attractive girl, even if she is pretty much average
> or plain. And most guys who both have their act together and ask out a
> significant number of such women are going to achieve a level of
> success...success by THEIR standards.
Sure. But another thing to bear in mind is that very often, what
shy males are after is not actually a relationship with a woman at all
but a feeling that they are not "out of the game" when it comes to
sexual interaction. In this case, they do not have such a free choice
of standards - a guy who goes out with girls whom others don't find
attractive, even if that one guy finds her very attractive, is still
seen as a loser by both men and women.
Mark Green
> > > complicated. I'm sure that if you provided particular scenarios to the
> > > group, that you would get feedback on what went wrong. Also, there is
> > > tons of free dating and relationship advice available all over the
> > > internet. Some of it is decent.
> > Sure. But again, you've failed to address the actual point, which
> > was that if you get accepted for a sympathy/fake date - ie, one where
> > the gal has predecided that she doesn't like you - then that's really
> > no acceptance at all, just a drawn-out rejection, but you won't know
> > about it until after the date. You can't divide pre-date and
> > post-date that easily.
> Well, I've acknowledged what appears to be your "actual point". I
> agree with you that just because a woman accepts a date doesn't mean
> that she is interested. I've said this many times. She could have
> run. Getting that first date is critical, even though there is no
> guarantee that much will develop from it.
Sure, that's true. But you're missing what I'm trying to say. If
the woman has decided IN ADVANCE that she will reject you after that
first date - then **it isn't really a first date at all**, it's just
an outing (and/or being used as a free ticket).
So in order to deal with that "first step" - getting a date - you
*do* have to know that there's at least a *chance* that she'll accept
you at the end of it. It doesn't have to be guaranteed, but there has
to be a possibility. If there is no possibility, because she's
already decided not to, then it isn't a date (by the usual
definition).
> > M&S is Marks and Spencer. It's a very reputable clothes store in the
> > UK. But it also has a universal reputation amongst those ages under
> > 35 as being "daggy" and out of fashion. Needless to say, if I visited
> > M&S to ask for dress help, the sales lady would not have told me that.
> > Now, I happen to know that fact about M&S but have no such similar
> > information about the other stores on the high street, so how can I
> > know which to choose?
> Perhaps the same ways you found out about M&S. You are aware of the
> reputation of that store, and how it is not viewed favorably by the
> under 35 set. So you get the basic concept of reputation, and how
> certain stores are favored over others by certain demographics. Ask
> around. That might be a good question to post on this board, as there
> seem to be a disproportionate number of lim... I mean U.K. people
> here.
I found out about that by reading it in the newspaper... BUT, the
newspaper story also implied that it had been common knowledge for
years, which I was not aware of. So I might find out about others
too, but it'll probably be too late.
In any case, it shows that my first proposition is true: sales
people cannot be trusted. If they could, the M&S sales lady would
have to tell me not to go to M&S, and that's obviously not something
they're going to do.
> not likely to be seen as a strange or weird question. Just a casual
> "Nice shirt. I need to buy a couple myself...where did you get that?"
But then I have the problem that, with no fashion sense, I don't
know that the shirt is "nice". *I* might like the way it looks, but
that doesn't mean it's fashionable - if I could just go by "what I
like", I wouldn't ever need a salesperson's help.
> > > knowledge of exactly how to dress in a particular part of the planet
> > > in the 21st century. They learned.
> > > In earlier posts I pointed out all of these methods by which people
> > > learn...but you rejected them.
> > You clearly have not pointed out all the methods by which people
> > learn, because there must be one that people in fact do use (and which
> > therefore would not be rejectable by logical argument).
> Instead, it really seems like it's mostly a case of "monkey see,
> monkey do" type behavior.
Which clearly isn't possible since you can't see the operation of
decision strategies. You can see their results, but you can't "do"
results, you can only do methods.
> > > > Which they presumably claim to do because plenty of people want to
> > > > be instructed on fashion. And none of them in fact do so - the advice
> > > > given is always specific to that week's guest. Instructions would be
> > > > telling you how they worked it out.
> > > And if you knew "how they worked it out"...well...you would be a
> > > fashion expert. Are you prepared to make a sustained study of fashion
> > > in order to devlop sufficient expertise to perform such a show? I'm
> > > sure not willing to do that.
> > Um, all the advisors on the shows are supposedly fashion experts.
> > You could use the NLP switchback technique to draw their decision
> > strategies.
> I'm not familiar with that technique.
1 - Imagine a well-dressed person.
2 - Change their body - NOT THEIR CLOTHES - until they no longer
appear well-dressed (and *not* by making them obese)
3 - Change their clothes - NOT THEIR BODY - until they appear
well-dressed again
4 - Go back to step 2
Trainspotter
> > Well, I've acknowledged what appears to be your "actual point". I
> > agree with you that just because a woman accepts a date doesn't mean
> > that she is interested. I've said this many times. She could have
> > But moving on to a practical issue - you've got to walk before you can
> > run. Getting that first date is critical, even though there is no
> > guarantee that much will develop from it.
>
> Sure, that's true. But you're missing what I'm trying to say. If
> the woman has decided IN ADVANCE that she will reject you after that
> first date - then **it isn't really a first date at all**, it's just
> an outing (and/or being used as a free ticket).
No, I'm not missing what you are trying to say. I understand that it
is possible that a woman could decided "IN ADVANCE" that she will
reject you after the first date. Sure, it is entirely possible (for
many different reasons).
Just as it is entirely possible that someone could give you a job
interview that they, in advance, have no intention of taking you
seriously for (maybe they already know who they want, but need to
schedule a certain amount of interviews for appearance purposes...to
make it look like they did a full search). Maybe you are a salesman,
and some potential "customers" will talk to you even though they have
already decided, in advance, not to buy from you.
Again, it's just one of those risks. We all take the risk of being
"used". Beyond that, I'm not sure what why you are fixating on that
point. It's just one of the risks of doing business. But what's the
alternative? Not do ANY business, just because of the possibility that
some people will waste some of your time?
>
> So in order to deal with that "first step" - getting a date - you
> *do* have to know that there's at least a *chance* that she'll accept
> you at the end of it. It doesn't have to be guaranteed, but there has
> to be a possibility. If there is no possibility, because she's
> already decided not to, then it isn't a date (by the usual
> definition).
Well, most people would still say that they had a date. It's just that
one party was getting used by the other party. Again, it's simply one
of the risks of doing business.
> > Perhaps the same ways you found out about M&S. You are aware of the
> > reputation of that store, and how it is not viewed favorably by the
> > under 35 set. So you get the basic concept of reputation, and how
> > certain stores are favored over others by certain demographics. Ask
> > around. That might be a good question to post on this board, as there
> > seem to be a disproportionate number of lim... I mean U.K. people
> > here.
>
> I found out about that by reading it in the newspaper... BUT, the
> newspaper story also implied that it had been common knowledge for
> years, which I was not aware of. So I might find out about others
> too, but it'll probably be too late.
Perhaps, perhaps not. If you start asking around when the opportunity
presents itself, you might find yourself more in the loop.
> In any case, it shows that my first proposition is true: sales
> people cannot be trusted. If they could, the M&S sales lady would
> have to tell me not to go to M&S, and that's obviously not something
> they're going to do.
I don't think you can trust most sales people to send you over to the
competition (though I have had this happen). But I do believe that you
can trust most clothing sales people to do a good job for you WITHIN
their store. Hence, my suggestion to go to REPUTABLE stores (you
aren't depending on the sales staff to choose the proper store...
rather you are relying on reputation from the demographic in the
community that you are essentially "dressing for"), and then rely on
sales staff from that point. Sales staff can take over when you are at
the right store.
>
> > not likely to be seen as a strange or weird question. Just a casual
> > "Nice shirt. I need to buy a couple myself...where did you get that?"
>
> But then I have the problem that, with no fashion sense, I don't
> know that the shirt is "nice". *I* might like the way it looks, but
> that doesn't mean it's fashionable - if I could just go by "what I
> like", I wouldn't ever need a salesperson's help.
Then don't do it, if you find it impossible. I was simply providing
you with one common way in which people get information about these
matters. If you don't think you can use it, you don't have to. You can
still determine which stores are reputable for your purposes, and
simply go in and rely on the sales people.
>
> > > > knowledge of exactly how to dress in a particular part of the planet
> > > > in the 21st century. They learned.
> > > > In earlier posts I pointed out all of these methods by which people
> > > > learn...but you rejected them.
> > > You clearly have not pointed out all the methods by which people
> > > learn, because there must be one that people in fact do use (and which
> > > therefore would not be rejectable by logical argument).
> > Instead, it really seems like it's mostly a case of "monkey see,
> > monkey do" type behavior.
>
> Which clearly isn't possible since you can't see the operation of
> decision strategies. You can see their results, but you can't "do"
> results, you can only do methods.
Um...the whole point of copycat behavior is that you DON'T go through
all of the person's methods. You just copy their results. For
instance, a copyright violator doesn't go through all of the "creative
method" by which a certain piece of work was created. He just copies
the result.
In our clothing example, you don't have to "do" the method they went
through in deciding to purchase the shirt. Who knows, maybe they are
really fashion savy and took all sorts of things into account? Who
knows?
But you don't need to understand their "method" of choosing. All you
want is to copy their results. You see the shirt, decide you want such
a shirt for yourself, find out where they bought it, and buy it. It's
just being a "copycat".
That's why in this world, some people SET trends, and others follow
them. Monkey see, monkey do.
> > > Um, all the advisors on the shows are supposedly fashion experts.
> > > You could use the NLP switchback technique to draw their decision
> > > strategies.
> > I'm not familiar with that technique.
>
> 1 - Imagine a well-dressed person.
> 2 - Change their body - NOT THEIR CLOTHES - until they no longer
> appear well-dressed (and *not* by making them obese)
> 3 - Change their clothes - NOT THEIR BODY - until they appear
> well-dressed again
> 4 - Go back to step 2
Hey, if this works for you, go for it. It doesn't for me. I find that
going to a reputable store and relying on the sales staff works just
fine.
Trainspotter
> trainsp...@hotmail.com (Trainspotter) wrote in message news:<25414bb1.04051...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Sure. But you have in turn acknowledged MY point - just because
> > > going to the doctor is a no-brainer, doesn't mean that people say that
> > > curing an infectious disease is a no-brainer. Thus, just because
> > > seeking advice from a salesperson on clothes is a no-brainer, doesn't
> > > mean that selecting clothes is a no-brainer - which you seemed to be
> > > asserting it was.
> > I've never disputed that point. I'm not saying that learning about
> > clothes is a no-brainer.
>
> You have disputed it - because you did, at one point, say that
> "dressing well is a no-brainer". The fact that delegating this to a
> sales lady is a no-brainer does not blow through onto the general
> definition of "dressing well" - if it did, it would do the same for
> "curing infectious diseases" as well.
You misunderstood. I have now explained multiple times that acquiring
the skills to actually master a skill may be difficult, but that
delegating normally isn't all that difficult. It's hard to become a
doctor, but easy to hire one. It's hard to become a lawyer, but it's
easy to hire one. Maybe it's hard to learn about fashion (though I
suspect not nearly as hard as becoming a doctor or lawyer), but it's
not all that difficult to go into a reputable store and let the staff
outfit you.
Now that the misunderstanding has been cleared up, why not allow the
issue to rest?
>
> > > like I could go tomorrow to a sales assistant to get better clothes
> > > and expect results - I still wouldn't have met the criteria for
> > > "having to together" because of the weight, and if I did I'd probably
> > > need new clothes. It's not clear how losing weight is going to happen
> > > but even if it does it will take time, so since I have some time to
> > > learn and prepare, why not use it for that now?
> > What, use the time to learn more about how to dress? I guess you can,
> > if you are willing to do it. I suppose it is just a matter of how much
> > interest you have in the subject. My only point is that you aren't
> > required to learn enough about this to get on the "middle road". It's
> > an option, not a requirement.
>
> I am still concerned that depending on the sales lady would be
> problematic when I came - for example - to discuss clothes with
> others. For example, I could not (as in your sample below) ask
> someone wearing trendy clothes where they bought them from - because I
> would have no way of knowing that their clothes were trendy, as I
> never learned how to work that out. The only way I'd have of knowing
> if someone's clothes were trendy would be if they were the same as
> mine (because "the sales lady dressed me trendily" would be the only
> knowledge I had and even that would be unproven)
Most people can tell if someone else is dressed sharply. The whole
point of dressing sharply is...well...for other people to notice it.
But let's say you are not like most people, and that you truly can't
tell who is dressed well and who isn't. Let's assume that you wouldn't
be able to tell the difference between a homeless bum dressed in rags,
and a GQ model on a photo shoot. I find it highly unlikely that such
is the case, but again, we'll just assume for the sake of argument.
If so, you can still ask around and try to find out which store or
stores is "reputable" (or you could try to research it online, or
through other resources) for your age group and purposes. Then go to
that store and let the sales staff help you.
> > So where does that leave us? At the end of the day, every guy is
> > going to have his own standards. Whether he can actually reel in
> > someone who meets his standards is the million dollar issue...for him
> > anyway.
>
> Sure. So the question must then come: when you say "it is unlikely
> that a guy who had his act together, and actually asked women out,
> would have zero success" then what definition of "zero success" are
> you using?
I already mentioned the standard: THEIR standard, whatever it may be.
For most, that seems to be a relationship with a reasonably attractive
woman, or at least not a heinously ugly woman.
>
> If you use the literal definition, then you've already ackonwledged
> that the majority of guys wouldn't have zero success by that
> definition. If you use the subjective definition, then you have to
> allow for what standards the guys in your sample would have.
Sure. And I've said that it appears that most guys do not have
incredibly high standards. Most guys seem to be satisfied with a girl
that is average or plain, so long as she is not heinously ugly. I've
never met a guy who both had his act together and asked plenty of
girls out who couldn't get a relationship with a girl that was at
least average. The type of girl that, while she isn't going to be
hounded to do Victoria's Secret runway shoots, is certainly not in the
"bottom-feeder" category that was described earlier.
However, I can allow that it is possible for a guy to have such high
standards that, realistically, he is probably not going to attain
them. For example, if you said to me "Trainspotter, I realize that I
don't have much dating experience. I'm also willing to work out,
improve my wardrobe, etc. But I insist upon only dating Victoria's
Secret models."
I would say back to you, "Good luck. Let me know how that goes for
you."
But again, as a practical matter, most guys are satisfied with a
fairly average woman. Assuming this as the standard, most guys who
both get their act together and ask women out regularly should be able
to attain it. I've never known any that couldn't.
Now, I DO know plenty of guys that have been royally screwed over by
their women. I know plenty of guys who probably wish they had never
met a given woman. Plenty of guys have had plenty of problems with
women.
But just the intial phase of getting an average woman? If a guy has
his act together and asks girls out on a regular basis, that's
probably going to happen for him. Later, he may wish it hadn't, but
that's a separate issue.
>
> > > > It doesn't guarantee it. But I've yet to know anyone who fulfills both
> > > > of the conditions and yet has never been able to get a girlfriend. You
> > > > don't seem to have any non-hypothetical examples of such guys either.
> > > > If they are so common, why is that neither of us know of any of them?
> > > Because any person who did enter that state would, if they had any
> > > common sense, immediately leave it. If a person asks girls out and
> > > gets zero success, he'll stop asking girls out and no longer match
> > > your criteria. If he "has it together" that only makes it worse
> > > because he'll figure there's something ELSE wrong with him. So, I can
> > > think of specific guys who at one point *did* fit your criteria, but
> > > no longer do, because they stopped asking girls out when it routinely
> > > led to failure.
> > That's fair enough. I don't know the guys you mention, so I can't say
> > for sure whether they truly had their "acts together" or not.
>
> Which is what I *knew* your argument would be if I did name anybody.
> So, how about a bit more detail on the "acts together" part? How
> much % muscle/fat mass? How many people must like their clothes?
Of course you "knew" that would be the argument. What am I supposed to
say? How can I give an analysis of someone that I have no information
about? You claim they have their "acts together"...but you don't
define what you mean by that. Intead, you ask me to define it by
asking the questions above. I notice you didn't answer them
yourself...even though you claim these guy had their "acts together".
Those questions don't really have specific answers. You can research
the muscle/fat questions yourself. As to how many people must like
their clothes? Technically, only one - the girl that is interested in
them. But in practice, it means that the demographic you are dressing
for must, in a general sense, "like" your clothes. In other words,
based on the general conventions and tastes of the demographic in
question, it helps to be dressed well.
But anyway, presumably you can tell whether someone is in shape or
not. Even extremely slow witted people can usually tell whether a
person is fat or not, for instance.
>
> > with the guys that you mention. Maybe they didn't really have their
> > acts together. Maybe they only asked a few girls out and gave up, even
> > though they would have succeeded by persisting. Maybe they set their
> > standards too high. I just can't know.
>
> But I don't think it fits. Because in both of the cases of guys I
> know who did this, they attracted *extremely* attractive women at one
> point, lost them (generally due to circumstances rather than a
> relationship breakdown) and then utterly struck out with everyone else
> and gave up. And no - it *isn't* becuase they were only asking out
> women of the same "standard" of the one they initially attracted -
> I've known that they asked out others.
Well, I can't deny that it is possible. But it seems unlikely, and it
doesn't make a lot of sense. I've certainly never known anyone who
could attract "extremely" attracive women at one point, and then
"utterly" struck out with everyone else.
I don't see why that would happen, and it is certainly not the normal
course of things. I suspect that there is more to this story that you
either don't know or are leaving out. If not, then this experience is
representative of a very small portion of guys. Maybe they are just
two of the unluckiest guys on earth. But again, I suspect that there
is more to the story.
>
> > But in the real world, MOST guys are not limiting themselves to the
> > true hotties (which I consider 8's and up). Most guys are satisfied
> > with a reasonably attractive girl, even if she is pretty much average
> > or plain. And most guys who both have their act together and ask out a
> > significant number of such women are going to achieve a level of
> > success...success by THEIR standards.
>
> Sure. But another thing to bear in mind is that very often, what
> shy males are after is not actually a relationship with a woman at all
> but a feeling that they are not "out of the game" when it comes to
> sexual interaction. In this case, they do not have such a free choice
> of standards - a guy who goes out with girls whom others don't find
> attractive, even if that one guy finds her very attractive, is still
> seen as a loser by both men and women.
So shy guys can only date trophy women? I don't buy it in general, but
let's say that, just for the sake of argument, such is the case. If
your goal is to impress others, then of course that raises the bar. I
would agree that a substantial number of guys probably can't attract
the sort of woman that would truly impress others. But some can.
I just don't think most guys focus too much on that, so they are free
to date a broader range of females. Most aren't going to want to date
a girl in the "bottom-feeder" category, but at the same time are
willing to date women in the average or plain categories. That's
certainly attainable by most guys who fulfill both of our conditions.
Hotties are harder, but are also attainable by many guys who get their
act together and ask girls out regularly.
Mark Green
> > > interest you have in the subject. My only point is that you aren't
> > > required to learn enough about this to get on the "middle road". It's
> > > an option, not a requirement.
> > I am still concerned that depending on the sales lady would be
> > problematic when I came - for example - to discuss clothes with
> > others. For example, I could not (as in your sample below) ask
> > someone wearing trendy clothes where they bought them from - because I
> > would have no way of knowing that their clothes were trendy, as I
> > never learned how to work that out. The only way I'd have of knowing
> > if someone's clothes were trendy would be if they were the same as
> > mine (because "the sales lady dressed me trendily" would be the only
> > knowledge I had and even that would be unproven)
> Most people can tell if someone else is dressed sharply. The whole
> point of dressing sharply is...well...for other people to notice it.
> But let's say you are not like most people, and that you truly can't
> tell who is dressed well and who isn't.
But that's not the situation I'm describing. My situation is that I
can indeed tell who is dressed and who isn't *in my opinion*, but I
*don't* have any guarantee that my opinion matches with the popular
definition of what is "fashionable". (After all, if it did, I could
pick my own clothes and wouldn't need the sales lady.) Thus, I can
ask somebody who I think is sharply dressed where they got their
clothes, but that does not mean that they actually *are* sharply
dressed by the general meaning of the word - and if they aren't, they
may redirect me to a store that's actually useless (because although
*they* might think it's good, it actually isn't)
> > > That's fair enough. I don't know the guys you mention, so I can't say
> > > for sure whether they truly had their "acts together" or not.
> > Which is what I *knew* your argument would be if I did name anybody.
> > So, how about a bit more detail on the "acts together" part? How
> > much % muscle/fat mass? How many people must like their clothes?
> Of course you "knew" that would be the argument. What am I supposed to
> say? How can I give an analysis of someone that I have no information
> about? You claim they have their "acts together"...but you don't
> define what you mean by that.
*You* were the one who asked me to post an example of someone who
had their "act together" and didn't define that further. If you want
me to accept a nebulous definition without responding with logical
argument, then fine, but you'll have to accept the same nebulousness
when I use that definition back to you!
> But anyway, presumably you can tell whether someone is in shape or
> not. Even extremely slow witted people can usually tell whether a
> person is fat or not, for instance.
Sure. And both of these people were. I don't know how popular
their clothes were.
> > But I don't think it fits. Because in both of the cases of guys I
> > know who did this, they attracted *extremely* attractive women at one
> > point, lost them (generally due to circumstances rather than a
> > relationship breakdown) and then utterly struck out with everyone else
> > and gave up. And no - it *isn't* becuase they were only asking out
> > women of the same "standard" of the one they initially attracted -
> > I've known that they asked out others.
> Well, I can't deny that it is possible. But it seems unlikely, and it
> doesn't make a lot of sense. I've certainly never known anyone who
> could attract "extremely" attracive women at one point, and then
> "utterly" struck out with everyone else.
>
> I don't see why that would happen, and it is certainly not the normal
> course of things. I suspect that there is more to this story that you
> either don't know or are leaving out. If not, then this experience is
> representative of a very small portion of guys. Maybe they are just
> two of the unluckiest guys on earth. But again, I suspect that there
> is more to the story.
I do not know what more you want to the story. Of the two people in
question. The first has always been in variable shape, but has always
been concerned about his shape and diets carefully and does a lot of
exercise, so he is always in reasonable shape. Because I cannot judge
clothes, I cannot judge his clothes. He went out near the end of high
school with a very attractive girl, and it kept for several months
until the end of HS when she moved away and they lost contact. Since
then, he's asked several women out and been turned down every time,
and more or less abandoned hope, although this is partly because he's
also into gaming and RPGs and figures this dooms him.
The second is an incredibly quiet guy, who is also in reasonable
shape - although I don't know how much he works out, he doesn't eat
much either. He was practically engaged to a Singaporean girl for
several years, and got compliments by association with her, until she
lost her visa and returned to Singapore and since then, he hasn't done
anything. I'm not sure what his opinion is because he's so quiet I
can't work it out.
> > > significant number of such women are going to achieve a level of
> > > success...success by THEIR standards.
> > Sure. But another thing to bear in mind is that very often, what
> > shy males are after is not actually a relationship with a woman at all
> > but a feeling that they are not "out of the game" when it comes to
> > sexual interaction. In this case, they do not have such a free choice
> > of standards - a guy who goes out with girls whom others don't find
> > attractive, even if that one guy finds her very attractive, is still
> > seen as a loser by both men and women.
> So shy guys can only date trophy women?
No, but they can't "bottom feed".
Mark Green
> > So in order to deal with that "first step" - getting a date - you
> > *do* have to know that there's at least a *chance* that she'll accept
> > you at the end of it. It doesn't have to be guaranteed, but there has
> > to be a possibility. If there is no possibility, because she's
> > already decided not to, then it isn't a date (by the usual
> > definition).
> Well, most people would still say that they had a date. It's just that
> one party was getting used by the other party. Again, it's simply one
> of the risks of doing business.
The "risk" and "being used" aspects aren't the issue - I'm not
saying that you shouldn't ask people out because of this. What I am
saying is that, when you give advice to people about dating, you need
to consider what comes afterwards as well. The significance of the
first date in social development is that it is the first step towards
a possible relationship; if she has already decided that no
relationship will take place, then it is not a first step, and thus
does not count as a first date for the purpose of social development.
> > > around. That might be a good question to post on this board, as there
> > > seem to be a disproportionate number of lim... I mean U.K. people
> > > here.
> > I found out about that by reading it in the newspaper... BUT, the
> > newspaper story also implied that it had been common knowledge for
> > years, which I was not aware of. So I might find out about others
> > too, but it'll probably be too late.
> Perhaps, perhaps not. If you start asking around when the opportunity
> presents itself, you might find yourself more in the loop.
Ask who? You have to already be in the loop to know who to ask, or
to have access to those people..
> > > not likely to be seen as a strange or weird question. Just a casual
> > > "Nice shirt. I need to buy a couple myself...where did you get that?"
> > But then I have the problem that, with no fashion sense, I don't
> > know that the shirt is "nice". *I* might like the way it looks, but
> > that doesn't mean it's fashionable - if I could just go by "what I
> > like", I wouldn't ever need a salesperson's help.
> Then don't do it, if you find it impossible. I was simply providing
> you with one common way in which people get information about these
> matters. If you don't think you can use it, you don't have to. You can
> still determine which stores are reputable for your purposes, and
> simply go in and rely on the sales people.
As I have mentioned, it shows a flaw in the "you can just trust
sales people" solution - namely that I'll still be seen as weird
because I can't discuss clothes with others.
> > > Instead, it really seems like it's mostly a case of "monkey see,
> > > monkey do" type behavior.
> > Which clearly isn't possible since you can't see the operation of
> > decision strategies. You can see their results, but you can't "do"
> > results, you can only do methods.
> Um...the whole point of copycat behavior is that you DON'T go through
> all of the person's methods. You just copy their results. For
> instance, a copyright violator doesn't go through all of the "creative
> method" by which a certain piece of work was created. He just copies
> the result.
Sure, but that's not relevant, because a movie is the same for
everyone. With clothes, what looks good on one person might not look
good on another. Just copying the results isn't likely to work.
> In our clothing example, you don't have to "do" the method they went
> through in deciding to purchase the shirt. Who knows, maybe they are
> really fashion savy and took all sorts of things into account? Who
> knows?
You do have to "do" the method. By doing so, you will evaluate your
own body type and appearance and pick a shirt to wear. This is likely
to be a fashionable shirt for you. If you just wear the same shirt as
them, it is unlikely to match you.
> That's why in this world, some people SET trends, and others follow
> them. Monkey see, monkey do.
And who sets the trends? Attractive people. And why do they set
trends? Because when others wear the same clothes, they show that
they think they're just as attractive. So the evaluation is still
based on the decision strategy.
> > > > Um, all the advisors on the shows are supposedly fashion experts.
> > > > You could use the NLP switchback technique to draw their decision
> > > > strategies.
> > > I'm not familiar with that technique.
> > 1 - Imagine a well-dressed person.
> > 2 - Change their body - NOT THEIR CLOTHES - until they no longer
> > appear well-dressed (and *not* by making them obese)
> > 3 - Change their clothes - NOT THEIR BODY - until they appear
> > well-dressed again
> > 4 - Go back to step 2
> Hey, if this works for you, go for it. It doesn't for me. I find that
> going to a reputable store and relying on the sales staff works just
> fine.
This is not a method for me to use. It is a method to be used by
those who know about fashion, in order to develop an idea of what
method they use to make fashion decisions.
Trainspotter
> > Well, most people would still say that they had a date. It's just that
> > one party was getting used by the other party. Again, it's simply one
> > of the risks of doing business.
>
> The "risk" and "being used" aspects aren't the issue - I'm not
> saying that you shouldn't ask people out because of this. What I am
> saying is that, when you give advice to people about dating, you need
> to consider what comes afterwards as well. The significance of the
> first date in social development is that it is the first step towards
> a possible relationship; if she has already decided that no
> relationship will take place, then it is not a first step, and thus
> does not count as a first date for the purpose of social development.
Now we are again touching on a problem that we have discussed before -
imperfect information.
Obviously, unless the guy is a very powerful mind reader, he's
probably not going to know that he doesn't have a chance. If he knew
that, he most likely wouldn't go on the date in the first place.
That's why it's so easy to use people - since we aren't mind readers,
we often don't know the other person's real motives or thoughts.
So he goes on the date (blissfully unaware of his impending failure),
stereotypically springing for dinner and a movie. Afterwards, he calls
her to ask for a second date. She dodges his calls, or makes up some
lame excuse, or perhaps comes right out and says "I'm not interested
in seeing you again."
So what? Just part of the risk of doing business. I'm not sure what it
is about this point that you want addressed. Can it happen this way?
Sure.
As to your point that advice about dating needs to consider what
happens after actually getting a date, that's fine. But at that point,
things become much more dependent on particulars. Whereas the initial
"get your act together" type of advice is more generic. There are
certain things that the typical person can do - getting fit, dressing
better, etc. - that will almost certainly raise their Sexual Market
Value (whether it can raise it far enough to achieve their goals is a
separate issue). Such advice can be given without reference to any
particular person or couple. Again, it's fairly generic.
But once the first date threshold has been crossed, things become a
lot less generic and a lot more dependent on particulars. Which is why
it is best to focus on the broader principles at first - doing those
things that improve SMV. Then, once you are actually in the game
(getting dates) you can get further feedback on what is happening at
that point.
>
> > > > around. That might be a good question to post on this board, as there
> > > > seem to be a disproportionate number of lim... I mean U.K. people
> > > > here.
> > > I found out about that by reading it in the newspaper... BUT, the
> > > newspaper story also implied that it had been common knowledge for
> > > years, which I was not aware of. So I might find out about others
> > > too, but it'll probably be too late.
> > Perhaps, perhaps not. If you start asking around when the opportunity
> > presents itself, you might find yourself more in the loop.
>
> Ask who? You have to already be in the loop to know who to ask, or
> to have access to those people..
You managed to figure out the reputation of M&S. So now finding out
the reputation of other stores is an insurmountable task?
> > Then don't do it, if you find it impossible. I was simply providing
> > you with one common way in which people get information about these
> > matters. If you don't think you can use it, you don't have to. You can
> > still determine which stores are reputable for your purposes, and
> > simply go in and rely on the sales people.
>
> As I have mentioned, it shows a flaw in the "you can just trust
> sales people" solution - namely that I'll still be seen as weird
> because I can't discuss clothes with others.
I didn't say to trust sales people to the point of giving them a blank
check. I'm not suggesting that you sign your life over to them, or
provide them with power of attorney. But most staff - at reputable
stores - will do a good faith job in terms of outfitting you with what
their store has to offer.
> > Um...the whole point of copycat behavior is that you DON'T go through
> > all of the person's methods. You just copy their results. For
> > instance, a copyright violator doesn't go through all of the "creative
> > method" by which a certain piece of work was created. He just copies
> > the result.
>
> Sure, but that's not relevant, because a movie is the same for
> everyone. With clothes, what looks good on one person might not look
> good on another. Just copying the results isn't likely to work.
I would say that it is highly likely to work, especially for a male.
With women, probably less so. In any event, that's what trends are all
about. A few set them, most follow them. Monkey see, monkey do type
stuff. Like it or not, that seems to be how fashions work.
>
> > In our clothing example, you don't have to "do" the method they went
> > through in deciding to purchase the shirt. Who knows, maybe they are
> > really fashion savy and took all sorts of things into account? Who
> > knows?
>
> You do have to "do" the method. By doing so, you will evaluate your
> own body type and appearance and pick a shirt to wear. This is likely
> to be a fashionable shirt for you. If you just wear the same shirt as
> them, it is unlikely to match you.
I would say that is more true for women than for men. For your
purposes, you'll probably be o.k.
Women have a far more difficult job of this than guys...because women
have far more choices than men.
>
> > That's why in this world, some people SET trends, and others follow
> > them. Monkey see, monkey do.
>
> And who sets the trends? Attractive people. And why do they set
> trends? Because when others wear the same clothes, they show that
> they think they're just as attractive. So the evaluation is still
> based on the decision strategy.
But it's not based on the same degree of knowledge. Which means...you
don't have to know very much in order to get decent results.
>
> > > > > Um, all the advisors on the shows are supposedly fashion experts.
> > > > > You could use the NLP switchback technique to draw their decision
> > > > > strategies.
> > > > I'm not familiar with that technique.
> > > 1 - Imagine a well-dressed person.
> > > 2 - Change their body - NOT THEIR CLOTHES - until they no longer
> > > appear well-dressed (and *not* by making them obese)
> > > 3 - Change their clothes - NOT THEIR BODY - until they appear
> > > well-dressed again
> > > 4 - Go back to step 2
> > Hey, if this works for you, go for it. It doesn't for me. I find that
> > going to a reputable store and relying on the sales staff works just
> > fine.
>
> This is not a method for me to use. It is a method to be used by
> those who know about fashion, in order to develop an idea of what
> method they use to make fashion decisions.
Which is something that you don't have to do in order to get the
results that you need.
Trainspotter
> > Most people can tell if someone else is dressed sharply. The whole
> > point of dressing sharply is...well...for other people to notice it.
> > But let's say you are not like most people, and that you truly can't
> > tell who is dressed well and who isn't.
>
> But that's not the situation I'm describing. My situation is that I
> can indeed tell who is dressed and who isn't *in my opinion*, but I
> *don't* have any guarantee that my opinion matches with the popular
> definition of what is "fashionable". (After all, if it did, I could
> pick my own clothes and wouldn't need the sales lady.) Thus, I can
> ask somebody who I think is sharply dressed where they got their
> clothes, but that does not mean that they actually *are* sharply
> dressed by the general meaning of the word - and if they aren't, they
> may redirect me to a store that's actually useless (because although
> *they* might think it's good, it actually isn't)
Sure, it's possible that matters could work themselves out that way.
But even if it did, how much worse off would you be? How big of a risk
are we really talking here?
But I do think you are making a bit of an error. You state that if you
could pick out someone who was "fashionable", that would mean "...I
could pick out my own clothes and wouldn't need the sales lady."
I'm not so sure about that. I can, for instance, see a strikingly
beautiful home...doesn't mean I can design it myself. I can see a room
that is very appealing in terms of its furnishings...doesn't mean I
know a thing about interior decorating. I don't.
Similarly, a person can make an impression on me as a sharp
dresser...doesn't mean I could have really selected the outfit myself.
I probably couldn't.
Again, it's all about division of labor. Some people are good at
creating positive appearances or impressions in other people. Doesn't
mean those "other people" could do it themselves.
>
> > > > That's fair enough. I don't know the guys you mention, so I can't say
> > > > for sure whether they truly had their "acts together" or not.
> > > Which is what I *knew* your argument would be if I did name anybody.
> > > So, how about a bit more detail on the "acts together" part? How
> > > much % muscle/fat mass? How many people must like their clothes?
> > Of course you "knew" that would be the argument. What am I supposed to
> > say? How can I give an analysis of someone that I have no information
> > about? You claim they have their "acts together"...but you don't
> > define what you mean by that.
>
> *You* were the one who asked me to post an example of someone who
> had their "act together" and didn't define that further. If you want
> me to accept a nebulous definition without responding with logical
> argument, then fine, but you'll have to accept the same nebulousness
> when I use that definition back to you!
Yes, but I don't know if they were "fit", or "well dressed", or any of
the other generic things we have been talking about. I certainly don't
know anything more specific, as in what types of girls they were going
after, what the context of the meetings were, and what their
conversational approach was. I just don't know enough about those guys
to really comment. As I've told you before, I accept the theoretical
possibility that such guys can exist. But I don't know of any
personally, and I don't know enough about these particular guys to
analyze the situation.
>
> > But anyway, presumably you can tell whether someone is in shape or
> > not. Even extremely slow witted people can usually tell whether a
> > person is fat or not, for instance.
>
> Sure. And both of these people were. I don't know how popular
> their clothes were.
O.K. Now we've established that they were fit. That's not a whole lot
to go on. All I know now is that they were fit, and at one time had
extremely good looking girlfriends. But afterwards, no girl ever said
"yes" to them again? Sounds like a nightmare. I hope there is more to
the story than this. Again, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
> > Well, I can't deny that it is possible. But it seems unlikely, and it
> > doesn't make a lot of sense. I've certainly never known anyone who
> > could attract "extremely" attracive women at one point, and then
> > "utterly" struck out with everyone else.
> >
> > I don't see why that would happen, and it is certainly not the normal
> > course of things. I suspect that there is more to this story that you
> > either don't know or are leaving out. If not, then this experience is
> > representative of a very small portion of guys. Maybe they are just
> > two of the unluckiest guys on earth. But again, I suspect that there
> > is more to the story.
>
> I do not know what more you want to the story. Of the two people in
> question. The first has always been in variable shape, but has always
> been concerned about his shape and diets carefully and does a lot of
> exercise, so he is always in reasonable shape. Because I cannot judge
> clothes, I cannot judge his clothes. He went out near the end of high
> school with a very attractive girl, and it kept for several months
> until the end of HS when she moved away and they lost contact. Since
> then, he's asked several women out and been turned down every time,
> and more or less abandoned hope, although this is partly because he's
> also into gaming and RPGs and figures this dooms him.
He's asked "several" women out, eh? And then abandoned all hope?
I guess a lot depends on what "several" means. If it just means a few
(like three), then that is his problem right there. I personally have
been shot down by "several" girls IN A ROW before...and remember I've
dated a fair number of true hotties. Now, if "several" means he asked
out a hundred girls, and every last one of them shot him down, then I
would agree he has reason to mope.
And I don't see why gaming and RPGs would inherently doom him. Does he
meet a girl, and five seconds later demand that he be her "Dungeon
Master"? If so, that's not too cool. But why would this even come up
with a girl that he just met, unless it was a girl who already knew
about this stuff...and was cool with it?
The main impact of gaming and RPGs is probably to waste most of his
free time, therefore limiting his contact with women (in which respect
it has a great deal in common with usenet). After your description,
I'm inclined to view "several" as meaning just a handful of girls. But
feel free to clear that up.
>
> The second is an incredibly quiet guy, who is also in reasonable
> shape - although I don't know how much he works out, he doesn't eat
> much either. He was practically engaged to a Singaporean girl for
> several years, and got compliments by association with her, until she
> lost her visa and returned to Singapore and since then, he hasn't done
> anything. I'm not sure what his opinion is because he's so quiet I
> can't work it out.
I could be wrong, but an "incredibly quiet guy" doesn't sound like the
type who regularly asks women out.
Mark, even some of the players and self-appointed gurus over at ASF
admit to success rates only in the range of ten to twenty percent.
Which means they are getting rejected eight or nine times out of ten.
My serious take on this, though of course this is just ballparking it:
if you get rejected by ten girls in a row, no sweat. You aren't going
to like it, it's not a lot of fun, but it doesn't really mean all that
much.
If you get rejected by twenty girls in a row, it's time to worry. But
it's still not time for "abandon hope, all ye who enter here".
If you get rejected by thirty to one hundred girls in a row...then the
guy needs to make some changes. Maybe that is to put more work into
raising his SMV (the sorts of generic things we have been talking
about). Maybe he needs a change in venue, or a change in approach
(he's going for the wrong sort of girls, or he's saying the wrong
things).
Or, maybe, consider the Largo option. That's pretty extreme, but it's
out there.
But I seriously doubt that either of your friends have hit thirty
rejections in a row (and I'm talking in person rejections, not chat
rooms and internet meetings).
>
> > > > significant number of such women are going to achieve a level of
> > > > success...success by THEIR standards.
> > > Sure. But another thing to bear in mind is that very often, what
> > > shy males are after is not actually a relationship with a woman at all
> > > but a feeling that they are not "out of the game" when it comes to
> > > sexual interaction. In this case, they do not have such a free choice
> > > of standards - a guy who goes out with girls whom others don't find
> > > attractive, even if that one guy finds her very attractive, is still
> > > seen as a loser by both men and women.
> > So shy guys can only date trophy women?
>
> No, but they can't "bottom feed".
Well, they can, but most aren't going to want to. Most are going to be
satisfied with relatively average women and Plain Jane types.
Marlow
This is important.
This is why logical arguments won't work. Even if you lose in all
your logical arguments about your own reasons for failure, at the end
of it all you'll still believe in your arguments anyway, at least on
some level.
I believe that you've got to find some other way to get rid of these
beliefs if you want any chance of success. Logical argument won't do
it. I don't know what the answer is. Maybe it's NLP, maybe it's some
kind of therapy, maybe it's a new philosophy on life. I really don't
know. But the way I see it, this simplifies your position greatly.
If you're ever to improve, this has to be step one, so this is the
only thing that you have to worry about right now. There's no need to
worry about clothing or anything else at this point, these are all
problems that you can reexamine later, AFTER you've found a solution
to this problem.
>
>
> I've acknowleged multiple times that learning to walk would
> logically be quite easy, because of the wealth of feedback available
> when you fall (you know exactly why you fell, and it's relatively easy
> to know how to avoid it next time). Neither of these is the case for
> social failure.
But if you were just sitting there, not having any of the skills yet
to learn how to walk, you logically could conclude that you don't have
enough information to succeed, and you don't have a proper refinement
system. Learning to walk is a skill that is partially hardwired into
our brains at birth, it comes naturally after you try and fail a bunch
of times. There is no logical system needed to figure this stuff out.
I think social skills are the same...there is no logical system that
is needed, it will start to come naturally after you start trying and
failing. Unfortunately there is no way to logically prove this, as
this is not based on logic.
>
> The problem with the "give up logic" argument is that logic *is* in
> the real world whether you like it or not. You can't just look away
> from something and pretend it's not there.
Logic is useful in some contexts, Logical arguments are not useful in
the way that you in particular happen to be using them. The results
you've gotten over the last several years is evidence of this.
Marlow
Mark Green
> > I do believe it, but at the same time I know my belief is wrong.
> > Just like somebody may know that thousands of planes land safely every
> > day but still believe that flying is extremely dangerous. Sadly, the
> > brain is perfectly capable of holding discongruous propositions and
> > does not automatically cancel the two with each other.
> This is important.
> This is why logical arguments won't work. Even if you lose in all
> your logical arguments about your own reasons for failure, at the end
> of it all you'll still believe in your arguments anyway, at least on
> some level.
But you will remember that my logical arguments do not stem from
nothing. They stem from requests for information explicitly stated.
The idea there is that, since my subconscious is broken because of
these weird beliefs, if I can pull everything up to the conscious mind
(which DOES apply reasoning properly) I can avoid any problems. Hence
the question about how to work out how to dress/know what to say etc.
without resorting to the subconscious.
William P
news:b79c52e4.04052...@posting.google.com:
> This is important.
>
> This is why logical arguments won't work. Even if you lose in all
> your logical arguments about your own reasons for failure, at the end
> of it all you'll still believe in your arguments anyway, at least on
> some level.
Wow, people are still taking MG's bait! Colour me surprised. Actually, I
think I've finally found the argument that is sure to cause MG to make
significant change in his life.
Mark Green
> > dressed by the general meaning of the word - and if they aren't, they
> > may redirect me to a store that's actually useless (because although
> > *they* might think it's good, it actually isn't)
> could pick out someone who was "fashionable", that would mean "...I
> could pick out my own clothes and wouldn't need the sales lady."
> I'm not so sure about that. I can, for instance, see a strikingly
> beautiful home...doesn't mean I can design it myself. I can see a room
> that is very appealing in terms of its furnishings...doesn't mean I
> know a thing about interior decorating. I don't.
Sure. But on the other hand, nobody would demand that somebody had
an interior that was well-decorated before inviting anyone around to
their house. People *do* demand that people are well-dressed before
socialising. So it seems that the societal perception is that it is
easier, and also not particularly creative.
> > > Of course you "knew" that would be the argument. What am I supposed to
> > > say? How can I give an analysis of someone that I have no information
> > > about? You claim they have their "acts together"...but you don't
> > > define what you mean by that.
> > *You* were the one who asked me to post an example of someone who
> > had their "act together" and didn't define that further. If you want
> > me to accept a nebulous definition without responding with logical
> > argument, then fine, but you'll have to accept the same nebulousness
> > when I use that definition back to you!
> Yes, but I don't know if they were "fit", or "well dressed", or any of
> the other generic things we have been talking about. I certainly don't
> know anything more specific, as in what types of girls they were going
> after, what the context of the meetings were, and what their
> conversational approach was. I just don't know enough about those guys
> to really comment. As I've told you before, I accept the theoretical
> possibility that such guys can exist. But I don't know of any
> personally, and I don't know enough about these particular guys to
> analyze the situation.
Sure. So why didn't you realise that before you asked me to post
examples?
> > until the end of HS when she moved away and they lost contact. Since
> > then, he's asked several women out and been turned down every time,
> > and more or less abandoned hope, although this is partly because he's
> > also into gaming and RPGs and figures this dooms him.
> He's asked "several" women out, eh? And then abandoned all hope?
> And I don't see why gaming and RPGs would inherently doom him. Does he
> meet a girl, and five seconds later demand that he be her "Dungeon
> Master"? If so, that's not too cool. But why would this even come up
> with a girl that he just met, unless it was a girl who already knew
> about this stuff...and was cool with it?
No, he doesn't do that. But he does know that - yes, it means he
isn't going out to places where there are lots of women (we could
argue interminably about the definition of "wasting" free time, but
let's not); and sooner or later the girl would have to find out when
he wanted to plan time to do it. Of course he can choose not to be
involved any more, but that would be suppressing the whole "liking
RPGs" part of his personality, and thus it makes sense that it dooms
him.
> > The second is an incredibly quiet guy, who is also in reasonable
> > shape - although I don't know how much he works out, he doesn't eat
> > much either. He was practically engaged to a Singaporean girl for
> > several years, and got compliments by association with her, until she
> > lost her visa and returned to Singapore and since then, he hasn't done
> > anything. I'm not sure what his opinion is because he's so quiet I
> > can't work it out.
> I could be wrong, but an "incredibly quiet guy" doesn't sound like the
> type who regularly asks women out.
Well, he asked enough out to meet the first girl in the first place,
and if he stopped I'd assume he had a reason why.
> If you get rejected by twenty girls in a row, it's time to worry. But
> it's still not time for "abandon hope, all ye who enter here".
It's not so much a number of rejections as a general feeling of
exclusion from the whole loop. I mean, if you don't feel welcome at
*any* of the standard locations where people meet women, you're kinda
stuck, right?
Trainspotter
> > I'm not so sure about that. I can, for instance, see a strikingly
> > beautiful home...doesn't mean I can design it myself. I can see a room
> > that is very appealing in terms of its furnishings...doesn't mean I
> > know a thing about interior decorating. I don't.
>
> Sure. But on the other hand, nobody would demand that somebody had
> an interior that was well-decorated before inviting anyone around to
> their house. People *do* demand that people are well-dressed before
> socialising. So it seems that the societal perception is that it is
> easier, and also not particularly creative.
It's as easy as going to a reputable store and letting the sales
assistant outfit you.
But the point is that most people can spot a well dressed person,
whether or not they would have known how to dress that way themselves.
That's why in fashion, a few people set the trends and the rest follow
like sheep.
> > Yes, but I don't know if they were "fit", or "well dressed", or any of
> > the other generic things we have been talking about. I certainly don't
> > know anything more specific, as in what types of girls they were going
> > after, what the context of the meetings were, and what their
> > conversational approach was. I just don't know enough about those guys
> > to really comment. As I've told you before, I accept the theoretical
> > possibility that such guys can exist. But I don't know of any
> > personally, and I don't know enough about these particular guys to
> > analyze the situation.
>
> Sure. So why didn't you realise that before you asked me to post
> examples?
Huh? Um...I realized that I didn't have enough information to analyze
the situation. That was an implicit invitation to you to either
provide me with more information, or in the alternative to recognize
that I couldn't speak to the subject very well.
> > He's asked "several" women out, eh? And then abandoned all hope?
> > And I don't see why gaming and RPGs would inherently doom him. Does he
> > meet a girl, and five seconds later demand that he be her "Dungeon
> > Master"? If so, that's not too cool. But why would this even come up
> > with a girl that he just met, unless it was a girl who already knew
> > about this stuff...and was cool with it?
>
> No, he doesn't do that. But he does know that - yes, it means he
> isn't going out to places where there are lots of women (we could
> argue interminably about the definition of "wasting" free time, but
> let's not); and sooner or later the girl would have to find out when
> he wanted to plan time to do it. Of course he can choose not to be
> involved any more, but that would be suppressing the whole "liking
> RPGs" part of his personality, and thus it makes sense that it dooms
> him.
Well, yes and no. You are sort of switching gears on me, for one
thing.
The issue we were discussing before was getting rejected flat out of
the gate. Now you are switching to concerns of "What about after they
find out about my hobbies?" Normally, you need to get an initial
acceptance before what she learns later on becomes of consequence. So
it sounds like your friend is not claiming that every girl would
reject him right off the bat, but rather that it would be futile in
the end due to his choice of devoting so much time to his hobbies.
While an interesting point in and of itself, this is not really the
issue we had been discussing.
But as to the subject of hobbies, obviously we all have to make
decisions about how we choose to spend our time. If your friend wants
to spend the bulk of his time and energy on gaming and RPGs (I hope
that means role playing, and not Rocket Propelled Grenades), then
that's his choice.
Obviously, relationships take time. People need attention, they need
investments in time and energy. This may vary according to the person,
but generally speaking, dating and relationships are fairly serious
time drains. If your friend isn't willing to invest the time and
effort into a relationship, then so be it.
That's his CHOICE. And this really doesn't have much to do with the
original issue of getting shot down right out of the gate by every
girl he asks out. He is not "doomed" per se, but only by his own
choices about how he wants to spend his time.
Of course, it would be ideal for a guy like that to get a girlfriend
who is into gaming as well. Since I've never tried to do that, I don't
know how realistic it is. I've always assumed that gaming is mostly a
male thing...but correct me if I'm wrong. The last time I gamed it was
almost entirely a male thing. It was truly something that you didn't
want to talk to females about.
If females are so rare in gaming that getting a gamer girlfriend is
not realistic (and by the way, I would LOVE to have a gamer
girlfriend...even as a current non-gamer), then your buddy has a
choice to make. He has to decide what is most important to him. It
seems like to me that he could compromise to achieve a happy medium,
but no point in my trying to substitute my priorities for him.
As an aside, I'll say this. It's been a long, long time since I did
any real gaming or RPGs (like, since middle and high school in the
early eighties). But really, if I was currently involved in some
engrossing games that I truly enjoyed, I might well condider that
preferable to dating. lol I'm not entirely sure, but I would at least
consider it. I miss the kind of guys that I used to know in gaming. My
present company is almost entirely made up of very business oriented
professionals. All they seem to care about is golf, the latest sports
news from their alma matters, and money. Other than money, I don't
really care about any of that stuff. Forgive my brief walk down memory
lane lol. In any event, it would be something of a close call between
a really good game and chasing skirts. It would have to be a pretty
compelling skirt to beat a compelling game, let's just put it that
way.
But then, I'm 37 and have already dated a lot of girls. I've seen the
good, the bad and the ugly of dating. I don't think I could have been
so sanguine at age 27. Certainly not at 17. In fact, it rather
astonishes me that someone in their twenties would even consider
sacrificing dating and relationships for games...but so be it. I
certainly wouldn't have.
>
> > > The second is an incredibly quiet guy, who is also in reasonable
> > > shape - although I don't know how much he works out, he doesn't eat
> > > much either. He was practically engaged to a Singaporean girl for
> > > several years, and got compliments by association with her, until she
> > > lost her visa and returned to Singapore and since then, he hasn't done
> > > anything. I'm not sure what his opinion is because he's so quiet I
> > > can't work it out.
> > I could be wrong, but an "incredibly quiet guy" doesn't sound like the
> > type who regularly asks women out.
>
> Well, he asked enough out to meet the first girl in the first place,
> and if he stopped I'd assume he had a reason why.
In other words, you don't know how many girls he asked out. If it was
only a handful, I just don't think that too many conclusions can be
drawn from such a small sample. The more girls he asks out, the more
conclusions can be inferred.
>
> > If you get rejected by twenty girls in a row, it's time to worry. But
> > it's still not time for "abandon hope, all ye who enter here".
>
> It's not so much a number of rejections as a general feeling of
> exclusion from the whole loop. I mean, if you don't feel welcome at
> *any* of the standard locations where people meet women, you're kinda
> stuck, right?
Possibly, but again this is a somewhat separate issue. The original
idea was simply to raise SMV by getting your act together, and then
ask girls out regularly. I stated that I've never known a guy who did
those generic things (got his act together), went on to ask girls out
regularly, and yet achieved zero success (above bottom-feeder level,
of course). Just a handful of rejections doesn't cut it...that can
happen to anybody, including the much vaunted "players".
But again, just to stress, this ASSUMES asking girls out on a regular
basis. If a guy won't do that, then he is indeed stuck.
At least the modern shybie has a resource that was unavailable to
those in times past: the internet. Even if he is uncomfortable at
bars, clubs, coffee shops, etc...he can still meet girls online, and
meet them while staying in the privacy of his own home. Hell, he can
probably play certain games and meet girls at the same time. I don't
have any stats, but it wouldn't surprise me if the internet has
surpassed all other venues as the top initial meeting ground for
dates. In fact, my best female friend just got engaged and is soon to
be married to a guy that she met online. The engagement party is this
June, I believe.
Not so long ago, that would have been unthinkable. Yet now it is
commonplace. The internet seems like a tool that is tailor made for
the shybie who is uncomfortable in the more traditional venues. It's a
way of meeting large numbers of girls at minimal cost and investment.
Marlow
Great theory, doesn't work. Six or seven years of attempts proves this.
Mark Green
> > > one party was getting used by the other party. Again, it's simply one
> > > of the risks of doing business.
> > The "risk" and "being used" aspects aren't the issue - I'm not
> > saying that you shouldn't ask people out because of this. What I am
> > saying is that, when you give advice to people about dating, you need
> > to consider what comes afterwards as well. The significance of the
> > first date in social development is that it is the first step towards
> > a possible relationship; if she has already decided that no
> > relationship will take place, then it is not a first step, and thus
> > does not count as a first date for the purpose of social development.
> probably not going to know that he doesn't have a chance. If he knew
> that, he most likely wouldn't go on the date in the first place.
> That's why it's so easy to use people - since we aren't mind readers,
> we often don't know the other person's real motives or thoughts.
But it doesn't matter whether he knows or not. What matters is
whether she is using him or not. The fact that he doesn't know this
is irrelevant.
> So what? Just part of the risk of doing business. I'm not sure what it
> is about this point that you want addressed. Can it happen this way?
> Sure.
Well, the point is that getting turned down in that way shows no
social improvement over getting turned down for the date in the first
place. So the fact (for example) that people who have their "act
together" and ask girls out get lots of dates, doesn't actually prove
anything because for all you know the girls are going on all those
dates with a predetermined decision to reject the men.
> But once the first date threshold has been crossed, things become a
> lot less generic and a lot more dependent on particulars.
True. However, the things which make her decide IN ADVANCE of the
date to reject the man at the end, must happen BEFORE the date and
therefore fall into the generic stage.
> > > matters. If you don't think you can use it, you don't have to. You can
> > > still determine which stores are reputable for your purposes, and
> > > simply go in and rely on the sales people.
> > As I have mentioned, it shows a flaw in the "you can just trust
> > sales people" solution - namely that I'll still be seen as weird
> > because I can't discuss clothes with others.
> I didn't say to trust sales people to the point of giving them a blank
> check. I'm not suggesting that you sign your life over to them, or
> provide them with power of attorney. But most staff - at reputable
> stores - will do a good faith job in terms of outfitting you with what
> their store has to offer.
So if I am not to trust sales people to the point of giving them a
blank check, what SHOULD I write on the check?
Mark Green
> > > I'm not so sure about that. I can, for instance, see a strikingly
> > > beautiful home...doesn't mean I can design it myself. I can see a room
> > > that is very appealing in terms of its furnishings...doesn't mean I
> > > know a thing about interior decorating. I don't.
> > Sure. But on the other hand, nobody would demand that somebody had
> > an interior that was well-decorated before inviting anyone around to
> > their house. People *do* demand that people are well-dressed before
> > socialising. So it seems that the societal perception is that it is
> > easier, and also not particularly creative.
> It's as easy as going to a reputable store and letting the sales
> assistant outfit you.
That may be true. Again, however, people are not criticised for
having a badly designed living room in the same way that they are for
having a bad choice of clothes. Why do you think that is?
> > No, he doesn't do that. But he does know that - yes, it means he
> > isn't going out to places where there are lots of women (we could
> > argue interminably about the definition of "wasting" free time, but
> > let's not); and sooner or later the girl would have to find out when
> > he wanted to plan time to do it. Of course he can choose not to be
> > involved any more, but that would be suppressing the whole "liking
> > RPGs" part of his personality, and thus it makes sense that it dooms
> > him.
> The issue we were discussing before was getting rejected flat out of
> the gate. Now you are switching to concerns of "What about after they
> find out about my hobbies?" Normally, you need to get an initial
> acceptance before what she learns later on becomes of consequence.
Sure, but there's no point making a lot of effort to get that
initial acceptance if a later rejection is guaranteed.
> it sounds like your friend is not claiming that every girl would
> reject him right off the bat, but rather that it would be futile in
> the end due to his choice of devoting so much time to his hobbies.
Except this isn't true: he plays games for 4 hours a week tops, on
Sunday afternoon.
> That's his CHOICE. And this really doesn't have much to do with the
> original issue of getting shot down right out of the gate by every
> girl he asks out. He is not "doomed" per se, but only by his own
> choices about how he wants to spend his time.
Um, he didn't *choose* to like gaming and RPGs, and given that he
does like them, the decision to do them is automatic.
> If females are so rare in gaming that getting a gamer girlfriend is
> not realistic (and by the way, I would LOVE to have a gamer
> girlfriend...even as a current non-gamer), then your buddy has a
> choice to make. He has to decide what is most important to him. It
> seems like to me that he could compromise to achieve a happy medium,
> but no point in my trying to substitute my priorities for him.
There are a fair number of gals in gaming now, but they are quite
rare, and rather many of them are either a) already taken, or b) act
like stuck-up princesses because of their rarity.
> But then, I'm 37 and have already dated a lot of girls. I've seen the
> good, the bad and the ugly of dating. I don't think I could have been
> so sanguine at age 27. Certainly not at 17. In fact, it rather
> astonishes me that someone in their twenties would even consider
> sacrificing dating and relationships for games...but so be it. I
> certainly wouldn't have.
If "dating and relationships" consists of sitting in a bar, looking
around at girls in other groups, occasionally seeing a rare single one
and asking her out to get blown off... then gaming's got to look more
appealing no matter how old you are.
> > > > The second is an incredibly quiet guy, who is also in reasonable
> > > > shape - although I don't know how much he works out, he doesn't eat
> > > > much either. He was practically engaged to a Singaporean girl for
> > > > several years, and got compliments by association with her, until she
> > > > lost her visa and returned to Singapore and since then, he hasn't done
> > > > anything. I'm not sure what his opinion is because he's so quiet I
> > > > can't work it out.
> > > I could be wrong, but an "incredibly quiet guy" doesn't sound like the
> > > type who regularly asks women out.
> > Well, he asked enough out to meet the first girl in the first place,
> > and if he stopped I'd assume he had a reason why.
> In other words, you don't know how many girls he asked out. If it was
> only a handful, I just don't think that too many conclusions can be
> drawn from such a small sample. The more girls he asks out, the more
> conclusions can be inferred.
Again, this still doesn't answer the question of a) why he met her
if he was asking few girls out before, and b) if it worked before why
it wouldn't work now.
> > > If you get rejected by twenty girls in a row, it's time to worry. But
> > > it's still not time for "abandon hope, all ye who enter here".
> > It's not so much a number of rejections as a general feeling of
> > exclusion from the whole loop. I mean, if you don't feel welcome at
> > *any* of the standard locations where people meet women, you're kinda
> > stuck, right?
> Possibly, but again this is a somewhat separate issue. The original
> idea was simply to raise SMV by getting your act together, and then
> ask girls out regularly. I stated that I've never known a guy who did
> those generic things (got his act together), went on to ask girls out
> regularly, and yet achieved zero success (above bottom-feeder level,
> of course). Just a handful of rejections doesn't cut it...that can
> happen to anybody, including the much vaunted "players".
Sure. But that "asking girls out" includes plenty of catches! For
example, even if you "get your act together" later on in life, it's
easy to find that you can't ask any girls out because you can't access
them - they're already in groups with those who got their act together
earlier. This doesn't mean they're necessarily romantically taken -
just that they come in and sit around a round table and any approach
to the group results in a "Wot u want, mate?" from one of the others
there.
Trainspotter
> > It's as easy as going to a reputable store and letting the sales
> > assistant outfit you.
>
> That may be true. Again, however, people are not criticised for
> having a badly designed living room in the same way that they are for
> having a bad choice of clothes. Why do you think that is?
Well, in terms of conscious criticism, I would say that both are
treated similarly. Being either poorly dressed or having a house that
is poorly furnished can lead to similar negative reactions. Some may
see both as a sign of the person's cluelessness, poverty or weirdness.
But the difference is that how our house is furnished doesn't make us
"good" or "bad" looking. How we dress directly affects our appearance.
Normally (not always, but normally) someone already knows us by the
time they see the inside of our house. We've already made the all
important "first impression", and how we dressed was probably a big
part of that first impression.
>
> > > No, he doesn't do that. But he does know that - yes, it means he
> > > isn't going out to places where there are lots of women (we could
> > > argue interminably about the definition of "wasting" free time, but
> > > let's not); and sooner or later the girl would have to find out when
> > > he wanted to plan time to do it. Of course he can choose not to be
> > > involved any more, but that would be suppressing the whole "liking
> > > RPGs" part of his personality, and thus it makes sense that it dooms
> > > him.
> > The issue we were discussing before was getting rejected flat out of
> > the gate. Now you are switching to concerns of "What about after they
> > find out about my hobbies?" Normally, you need to get an initial
> > acceptance before what she learns later on becomes of consequence.
>
> Sure, but there's no point making a lot of effort to get that
> initial acceptance if a later rejection is guaranteed.
No, there isn't. But since most of us are not accomplished mind
readers, we won't know whether the later rejection is guaranteed or
not...until it happens. And since most guys want to pursue some level
of involvement with women, they go forward despite the risks. If you
want something badly enough, there is very much a point in making a
lot of effort...unless you know with considerable certainty that you
aren't going to succeed.
>
> > it sounds like your friend is not claiming that every girl would
> > reject him right off the bat, but rather that it would be futile in
> > the end due to his choice of devoting so much time to his hobbies.
>
> Except this isn't true: he plays games for 4 hours a week tops, on
> Sunday afternoon.
Then why in the world is there any suggestion that this "doomed" him?
How would such a modest and relatively benevolent investment of his
time hurt him with females so much that he is "doomed"? If he only
plays games for a few hours on Sunday afternoon, I don't see why the
female would even need to KNOW about this hobby until well into the
dating process.
>
> > That's his CHOICE. And this really doesn't have much to do with the
> > original issue of getting shot down right out of the gate by every
> > girl he asks out. He is not "doomed" per se, but only by his own
> > choices about how he wants to spend his time.
>
> Um, he didn't *choose* to like gaming and RPGs, and given that he
> does like them, the decision to do them is automatic.
Give me a break. The decision is only "automatic" if he is an addict.
We have choices. People like all sorts of things, but often do not
indulge in what they like for a variety of reasons - usually other
competing priorities. People like to eat, like to have fun, like to
laze around the house...etc. But they control their desires in order
to meet OTHER things that are important, like working, family
responsibilities, making money, staying fit and getting exercise.
Among others.
Your friend has a free choice as to whether he spends time playing
games, unless he is an addict. If he CHOOSES to let other areas of his
life suffer due to gaming, then he is responsible for that.
But, on a purely practical level, I must say that I'm baffled that
such a modest time investment in a hobby would "doom" him with women.
Care to explain? It sounds like a pretty lame excuse for simply not
trying.
>
> > If females are so rare in gaming that getting a gamer girlfriend is
> > not realistic (and by the way, I would LOVE to have a gamer
> > girlfriend...even as a current non-gamer), then your buddy has a
> > choice to make. He has to decide what is most important to him. It
> > seems like to me that he could compromise to achieve a happy medium,
> > but no point in my trying to substitute my priorities for him.
>
> There are a fair number of gals in gaming now, but they are quite
> rare, and rather many of them are either a) already taken, or b) act
> like stuck-up princesses because of their rarity.
Lol Figures. Got my hopes up for a moment. Thanks for getting me back
down to earth.
>
> > But then, I'm 37 and have already dated a lot of girls. I've seen the
> > good, the bad and the ugly of dating. I don't think I could have been
> > so sanguine at age 27. Certainly not at 17. In fact, it rather
> > astonishes me that someone in their twenties would even consider
> > sacrificing dating and relationships for games...but so be it. I
> > certainly wouldn't have.
>
> If "dating and relationships" consists of sitting in a bar, looking
> around at girls in other groups, occasionally seeing a rare single one
> and asking her out to get blown off... then gaming's got to look more
> appealing no matter how old you are.
Well, "dating and relationships" have constituted considerably more
for me than you have described. But in the end, you usually find
yourself in a relationship with a self-centered "me, me, me" type (now
more or less the norm in the West). How is that enjoyable? The sex
might be cool, but ultimately, you can't build a substantive
relationship on just sex.
> > In other words, you don't know how many girls he asked out. If it was
> > only a handful, I just don't think that too many conclusions can be
> > drawn from such a small sample. The more girls he asks out, the more
> > conclusions can be inferred.
>
> Again, this still doesn't answer the question of a) why he met her
> if he was asking few girls out before, and b) if it worked before why
> it wouldn't work now.
Those are valid questions, and you really haven't provided me with
enough information to give a definitive answer.
All I can say concerning a) is that flukes happen. For instance, a lot
of guys that would never consider asking a girl out in a bar happen to
meet someone at school or work, things seem to click, and it goes from
there. It happens. But, particularly once one is out of school, it
doesn't happen all that often. At school, you are surrounded by
hundreds and even thousands of attractive single females. Even if a
guy makes no bold moves at all, there is at least a reasonable
possibility that he will meet a girl and, ultimately, they begin to
date. Flukes happen outside of college as well, but it becomes less
and less likely, for the simple reason that few guys in the "real
world" are surrounded by as many single and attractive women as they
were in college.
As to part b), not much I can say without more information. If a guy
has a decent SMV, then he should be able to achieve a decent level of
success with women. I've never known anyone who enjoyed reasonable
success at one point, and then only drew goose eggs from that point
on. I do, however, know guys who fluked into dating a true hottie
(their SMV wasn't really enough to draw most hotties, but for whatever
reason a particular one found him attractive) and never were able to
reach their former heights again. But they could still get average and
Plain Jane type women.
But why don't you ask your friend how he met his former girlfriend?
What did he do then? Has he tried to repeat it?
> > Possibly, but again this is a somewhat separate issue. The original
> > idea was simply to raise SMV by getting your act together, and then
> > ask girls out regularly. I stated that I've never known a guy who did
> > those generic things (got his act together), went on to ask girls out
> > regularly, and yet achieved zero success (above bottom-feeder level,
> > of course). Just a handful of rejections doesn't cut it...that can
> > happen to anybody, including the much vaunted "players".
>
> Sure. But that "asking girls out" includes plenty of catches! For
> example, even if you "get your act together" later on in life, it's
> easy to find that you can't ask any girls out because you can't access
> them - they're already in groups with those who got their act together
> earlier. This doesn't mean they're necessarily romantically taken -
> just that they come in and sit around a round table and any approach
> to the group results in a "Wot u want, mate?" from one of the others
> there.
I understand. As I implied earlier in the post, there are certain
points in a person's life that are particularly conducive to getting
dates. For most people, that's school. After that, it gets harder due
to the relative paucity of single and attractive women (compared to
college, anyway). When I was a student I would see more good looking
girls during just one five minute stroll from one class to the next,
more good looking girls than I see now in weeks. The only major
exception is if I head to a nightclub. I didn't do that this weekend,
and as a result have seen virtually no attractive women. That wouldn't
have been the case if I still lived on a college campus.
But even for the guy who just can't bring himself to operate in more
traditional singles venues like bars and nightclubs (and I'm tempted
to add in coffee shops and bookstores), there is still the internet.
As I've said before, I'd guess that more people are meeting their
first dates on the internet than are doing so in bars. Seems like an
option that is tailor made for the shybie who can't or won't try the
more traditional venues.
Mark Green
> > > This is why logical arguments won't work. Even if you lose in all
> > > your logical arguments about your own reasons for failure, at the end
> > > of it all you'll still believe in your arguments anyway, at least on
> > > some level.
> > But you will remember that my logical arguments do not stem from
> > nothing. They stem from requests for information explicitly stated.
> > The idea there is that, since my subconscious is broken because of
> > these weird beliefs, if I can pull everything up to the conscious mind
> > (which DOES apply reasoning properly) I can avoid any problems. Hence
> > the question about how to work out how to dress/know what to say etc.
> > without resorting to the subconscious.
> Great theory, doesn't work. Six or seven years of attempts proves this.
No. I have simply not gotten the information I need to apply it,
and this is only because nobody has been bothered to provide it.
Mark Green
> > > It's as easy as going to a reputable store and letting the sales
> > > assistant outfit you.
> > That may be true. Again, however, people are not criticised for
> > having a badly designed living room in the same way that they are for
> > having a bad choice of clothes. Why do you think that is?
> Well, in terms of conscious criticism, I would say that both are
> treated similarly. Being either poorly dressed or having a house that
> is poorly furnished can lead to similar negative reactions. Some may
> see both as a sign of the person's cluelessness, poverty or weirdness.
But they are not. A typical "geek" complaint is that somebody is
badly dressed. You don't hear people saying "he's such a geek, his
sofa doesn't even match the carpet".
> > > > he wanted to plan time to do it. Of course he can choose not to be
> > > > involved any more, but that would be suppressing the whole "liking
> > > > RPGs" part of his personality, and thus it makes sense that it dooms
> > > > him.
> > > The issue we were discussing before was getting rejected flat out of
> > > the gate. Now you are switching to concerns of "What about after they
> > > find out about my hobbies?" Normally, you need to get an initial
> > > acceptance before what she learns later on becomes of consequence.
> > Sure, but there's no point making a lot of effort to get that
> > initial acceptance if a later rejection is guaranteed.
> No, there isn't. But since most of us are not accomplished mind
> readers, we won't know whether the later rejection is guaranteed or
> not...until it happens.
I said nothing about *knowing* it. I was talking about whether or
not it was IN FACT guaranteed.
> > > it sounds like your friend is not claiming that every girl would
> > > reject him right off the bat, but rather that it would be futile in
> > > the end due to his choice of devoting so much time to his hobbies.
> > Except this isn't true: he plays games for 4 hours a week tops, on
> > Sunday afternoon.
> Then why in the world is there any suggestion that this "doomed" him?
> How would such a modest and relatively benevolent investment of his
> time hurt him with females so much that he is "doomed"? If he only
> plays games for a few hours on Sunday afternoon, I don't see why the
> female would even need to KNOW about this hobby until well into the
> dating process.
But he still thinks that as soon as she did know, the realisation
would drive her straight out of the door.
> > > That's his CHOICE. And this really doesn't have much to do with the
> > > original issue of getting shot down right out of the gate by every
> > > girl he asks out. He is not "doomed" per se, but only by his own
> > > choices about how he wants to spend his time.
> > Um, he didn't *choose* to like gaming and RPGs, and given that he
> > does like them, the decision to do them is automatic.
> Give me a break. The decision is only "automatic" if he is an addict.
> We have choices. People like all sorts of things, but often do not
> indulge in what they like for a variety of reasons - usually other
> competing priorities.
Sure. The fact, however, is that what we actually do at any given
moment is to pick the highest priority thing we have available and do
that. If you think we'd still have a choice at that point, then you
need to widen your definition of "priority" to include whatever you'd
use to make that choice. Furthermore, by and large we do not choose
what our priorities are at any more than a very simple level. You
cannot choose what you like (otherwise, if you have to do some work
you don't like, you could choose to change that fact and like it so
that you would do it better)
> Your friend has a free choice as to whether he spends time playing
> games, unless he is an addict. If he CHOOSES to let other areas of his
> life suffer due to gaming, then he is responsible for that.
If it turns out that his personality is the type that does, that he
will. You do not choose your personality, because your personality is
what makes all your choices.
> > > choice to make. He has to decide what is most important to him. It
> > > seems like to me that he could compromise to achieve a happy medium,
> > > but no point in my trying to substitute my priorities for him.
> > There are a fair number of gals in gaming now, but they are quite
> > rare, and rather many of them are either a) already taken, or b) act
> > like stuck-up princesses because of their rarity.
> Lol Figures. Got my hopes up for a moment. Thanks for getting me back
> down to earth.
Well, there are decent ones too.
> > > so sanguine at age 27. Certainly not at 17. In fact, it rather
> > > astonishes me that someone in their twenties would even consider
> > > sacrificing dating and relationships for games...but so be it. I
> > > certainly wouldn't have.
> > If "dating and relationships" consists of sitting in a bar, looking
> > around at girls in other groups, occasionally seeing a rare single one
> > and asking her out to get blown off... then gaming's got to look more
> > appealing no matter how old you are.
> Well, "dating and relationships" have constituted considerably more
> for me than you have described.
Sure, but they haven't for him.
> > > In other words, you don't know how many girls he asked out. If it was
> > > only a handful, I just don't think that too many conclusions can be
> > > drawn from such a small sample. The more girls he asks out, the more
> > > conclusions can be inferred.
> > Again, this still doesn't answer the question of a) why he met her
> > if he was asking few girls out before, and b) if it worked before why
> > it wouldn't work now.
> All I can say concerning a) is that flukes happen. For instance, a lot
> of guys that would never consider asking a girl out in a bar happen to
> meet someone at school or work, things seem to click, and it goes from
> there. It happens.
Problem there is, if flukes happen, why don't they happen randomly
to shybies?
> > > regularly, and yet achieved zero success (above bottom-feeder level,
> > > of course). Just a handful of rejections doesn't cut it...that can
> > > happen to anybody, including the much vaunted "players".
> > Sure. But that "asking girls out" includes plenty of catches! For
> > example, even if you "get your act together" later on in life, it's
> > easy to find that you can't ask any girls out because you can't access
> > them - they're already in groups with those who got their act together
> > earlier. This doesn't mean they're necessarily romantically taken -
> > just that they come in and sit around a round table and any approach
> > to the group results in a "Wot u want, mate?" from one of the others
> > there.
> But even for the guy who just can't bring himself to operate in more
> traditional singles venues like bars and nightclubs (and I'm tempted
> to add in coffee shops and bookstores), there is still the internet.
It's not a question of not being able to bring myself to operate,
it's a question of not being allowed to operate. In most nightclubs,
everyone sits in closed groups, and the music is so loud that they can
only hear each other by knowing in advance that the other people are
addressing them. They don't know that about somebody who's trying to
break into the group.