Facebook's "Seen" feature is F*CKING me up

[cuberdrift]

I'll keep it short.

1) If she really is not interested at all, if she got irritated with your "too personally invasive" questions, if she feels you are being too pushy, etc., why would she even bother replying to your follow-up messages? That's the part of the puzzle I don't really get. Wouldn't removing you from the "buddies" list/ignoring you completely be a more logical option?

As I said perhaps she didn't feel like answering in the first place, but it became too clear that I was anticipating an answer, so she had to answer it, for fear of appearing outright rude.

2) What happens with the "Seen" feature when a recipient (accidentally) deleted the message(s) without even reading it/them? Does Facebook still announce "Seen", or what?

I guess so. But why would she accidentally delete them? Plus the fact that she claims she hasn't read "these messages"; if they were deleted, she would have never known of their existence.

P.S.: If she really did see the messages but denies having seen them, then I suspect she simply wants you to change tactics.

Change tactics? How?

OH, you mean you haven't just watched her sleep through her bedroom window already, and snuck up on her in the driveway yet?

On what context would this be?

The unpleasantness of this all stems from the fact that it involves so much guesswork, suspicion, and over-thinking. Granted, I am past this problem, but I am still willing to examine the science behind this phenomenon.

[dima_76557]

But why would she accidentally delete them?

Who said SHE (accidentally) deleted them?

Anybody acquainted with the Facebook system, her browser, and/or her computing device/phone could give you possible scenario's. I am not, but here is an attempt:

She is the unlucky owner of one of those popular but very buggy browser add-ons that bulk delete Facebook messages without asking questions (they have direct access to the account if it's open, mind you!). The "show warning before deleting" may not be marked by default and computer users are usually too lazy to check the settings. If those delete commands are linked to certain hotkeys, then a cat jumping upon a laptop may be all it takes to activate the process under the right circumstances. Trying to put a page into the "bookmarks/favorites" may even trigger removal and you lose the entire page.

If it works more like a chat mechanism, then browser focus (chat window open or not) may affect the seen/unseen features, etc. We have no way of knowing what really happened.
P.S.: I can't even imagine how some girls manage to keep their 500 or more "buddies" satisfied in similar networking situations without mixing anything up...

Plus the fact that she claims she hasn't read "these messages"; if they were deleted, she would have never known of their existence.

I don't know. I read somewhere that even if you delete incoming messages, the already deleted incoming messages become visible again with the next message from that same person. As I said, I am not familiar with the Facebook mechanism, but it is entirely possible that she saw "these messages" only after you started pushing her to reply to them. No contradiction, no lying, no evil games on her part.

Change tactics? How?

I'll leave that kind of advice to others. All I can say is: stop making things so complicated for yourself. Simply give her space/freedom and temper your overly eager expectations a bit.

[outin]

I'm sorry, what do you mean by "people with little going on between their ears"?

People who are not prone to rational thinking...or not much individual thinking at all.

Complexity and suspect game playing would describe the advice nyiregyhazi is giving me. He asserts that I should not try my luck in this ordeal if I have not grasped a proper understanding of its mechanics. Your advice thankfully gives me a chance to breathe in between, but I am still entertaining of both optimistic and pessimistic advice. Carry on.

Nyiregyhazi probably is cocky enough to pull off with the behavior he advices and he might be drawn to women who respond the way he describes. The fact that he actually thinks it's the norm probably comes from limited circles, lack of life experience and unwillingness to see through his own ideas about human behavior which he likes to re-enforce through very selective reading and observing.

I can assure you that there are plenty of women out there who you will be able to interact without any specific "strategies". Being yourself and comfortable with it is actually the most effective way of attracting the opposite sex (apart from good looks which are not much in your control). That's the kind of behavior you will hopefully learn when you mature. Do not read too much on little things like an unanswered message and spend much time to analyse someone's motives. Life is full of such small disappointments, mostly just caused by chance. The solution is to move on and see what happens.

I am not talking about this case, because we really have no idea what the girl in question is thinking. But in general it is true that neither men nor women often respond well if someone they are not close with appears too needy. But this doesn't mean that people must play games in their interaction with others. You learn what works from experience and you must incorporate your experiences to your own personality to find a balance. It's quite sad to see those who have a different nature try to take advice from people with super self-confidence and an opportunist take on life. They will crash and burn, due to not truly being themselves. Even if not being too obvious and found out, they will end up in relationships that will give them little pleasure and a lot of stress because they are continuously required to keep up a role so unnatural to them.

But still my advice is not to give much credit to advice from people who you do not know personally, who do not know you and have no professional expertise. The ability to write lengthy explanations on things often does not reflect real understanding of them. It's quite easy to write a lot of BS that looks smart on superficial inspection, but that's not science

[outin]

I understand. It's just that I don't know why it isn't working out the way it does with other people. Sorry, but guys won't ever leave a question blank for me...at least they don't, usually. Women on the other hand are another matter...

...okay I'm getting pretty confused here. Let's just say I do have experience conversing with women through Facebook's messaging system (this is a fact). I rarely have any trouble getting responses out of...girls. This is also a fact. Even that girl. It is just that I got a tad pissed off that time, that particular time, when Facebook kept telling me she saw the message and refused to leave anything in return. I believe I can safely admit that it is not something that regularly occurs to me.

You just said it yourself: This is not something that really happens much with girls or guys. This is an isolated case. Lets assume you asked a question this specific person doesn't want to answer. If you ask such a question from a guy, you might get a more agressive reaction. There's a difference in the expectations on your culture on how girls are supposed to act. If you insult them most of them probably won't punch you in the face as many guys would. Not because she doesn't want to, but because she just isn't used to doing such things and lacks practice. She probably is raised in a way not to answer F*** o**, it's none of your business. Not all guys would do that either. But people commonly acknowledge behavior that fits their preconceived ideas while deviations go unnoticed, so re-enforcing those stereotypic models, no matter how far from reality.

It's just not useful to start anticipating "girl behavior" and "guy behavior" and act on those stereotypes when trying to build a relationship. You must see the actual person, not the group she belongs to. You learn about that person as you go.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't know if this will help, but the message didn't exactly go in the irritated tone of "Haven't you read these messages?..." but it was phrased in a similar way, in that I wanted to tell her that I'm a tad bewildered why my question wasn't getting answered. At least, that was my intent. She may have interpreted it differently. You tell me what she could've been thinking at that.

Instant fail. It's waters off a ducks back for a strong male. Your message shows you are investing too much, expecting things in return without having the strength to actually show your interest and easily annoyed. A strong male either carries on as if nothing happened, waits plenty longer than a day, or at least jokes in the repeat request so as not to clingy and insecure.

It may not fall under the category of "sin" but it comes of as potentially impolite in my book. I have already said that I myself have never, or hardly, and would not, fail to answer any question offered me by anyone out of basic courtesy. I don't know if she decidedly doesn't consider this, or doesn't think it's rude anyway.

Please listen to that podcast. This attitude will get you nowhere. Women don't divine your expectations and you don't have a god given right to reciprocation. Men who expect that get frustrated and exploited. Do you imagine that if a guy goes into a bar and buys a random woman a drink, she will feel obligated to buy him one back? In some cases maybe, if she really likes him. But he already set out that he has to buy her affection. That may have already weakened his image. If not, it has still set up a likely cycle of imbalance in which she will continue to expect things of him but not reciprocate.

If you want a date, you need to ask for it. Your actions are like a small dog that hangs around with its tongue wagging yet does nothing while in her presence but hang around. Women hate that, apart from those who take the opportunity to exploit such men. You need to forget the idea that she's supposed to give things back to you because you'd do them. If the world worked that way, anyone a man fancied would be obligated to sleep with him. Men take action and get things, they don't sit round weakly expect things from people without having any right whatsoever to do so. Such men are left on the heap.

You're saying here that the destitute nature of that follow-up message destroyed all the chances of her still possibly regarding me as a "high status male"? In other words, you tell me that my needy reply placed me as poor guy in need of women's attention.

To be honest, I'm judging it more by your fanatic analyses on here. You're behaving as a male who wants things, doesn't attempt to get them and then wastes hours of his waking life stressing and wishing rather than being simple and direct. Again, this is typically poison and women are spectacular at picking up on the signals. Your frustration at not getting a reply will likely have been the tip of the iceberg. You need to work on how you see the world in general. That podcast has the answers to these issues.

I guess I had to learn this the hard way, and realize that there are other options open, and ranting about one failed opportunity does more harm than good and it is not worth my time doing such a disservice to myself. Correct?

Precisely. You're allowed to have emotions but too much support and back slapping in these situations will only make things worse. Strong men move on and don't rant. A future prospect doesn't have to have read a rant to get some kind of feel about the person who would have made it. Unless you start learning new thought patterns.

Sorry, I don't quite get it - who are these "creepy stalkers" you speak of?

People who think they are romantics who yearn for one person and just hang around, without taking action. It's not romantic to the rest of the world. It's an obsessive stalker.

Excuse me, I don't fully understand this. You tell me that women turn down someone who shows off-putting qualities them off much faster than men? And, as such, men tend to wait too long before realizing they've been with the wrong person?

Of course. Men are much more drawn by physical beauty and women are much more easily repelled by mental characteristics. Before outin chips in, I didn't say it's a hundred percent rule for all. But it's a very strong trend. in fact, it's spectacularly strong if you are aware of statistics regarding the different ways in which men and women use dating websites. Women can typically get 40-50 messages per day. An ex who I met on a site showed me her account. Others I've dated confirmed those kinds of numbers. No man will ever receive that volume on a dating website. You need to be aware of these issues, because they are absolutely real- regardless of what idealised nonsense puts blinkers on some, regarding statistically incontrovertible and evidence.

You tell me here that women have been designed by nature in such a way that they are fast in indicating off-putting qualities and thus turning down undesirable suitors, while men, who have limited options, would choose to let such qualities pass by unless extreme?

There's a famous experiment where a reasonable percentage of men were open to a new instant offer of sex from an attractive woman. Not one woman accepted from the equivalent with an attractive man. Yes women exclude quicker and more readily. Anyone who denies these trends is plain naive about the world. Even a man with wide options can screw an annoying woman and leave, with little investment. A woman has to consider whether a guy would be good to hang round as a father, in the case of pregnancy, or if the genes are strong enough even if he vanishes. Unconsciously these things come into play.

I would never have had classed that as the way you describe it here. Regardless I think I shouldn't have done that, but by God, your descriptions horrify me. I am positive about your intent here, but seriously, what is so morally wrong about being genuine? You tell me off overtly harshly for being honest. I am not acting against you because I believe you speak from what you observe really occurs in females, and if that is indeed the horrible truth...funny how transparency could get us into so much trouble.

This is a fine line, but some things really must change. A guy who obsesses and gets frustrated if she doesn't reply within 24 hour must learn to change that. Even if she went for it, there would be no future in a relationship based on such insecurity. Some say if you fake something for long enough, it becomes real. I actually believe that to a fair degree. Some things cannot be faked, but a guy has to become the strong version of himself. That doesn't mean insincerity, it means bettering insecurities.

Complexity and suspect game playing would describe the advice nyiregyhazi is giving me.

Absolutely not. It's a matter of finding yourself. A lot of people dislike Neil Strauss' routines- which are very much about creating a false self to fake interest. The respectable methods are primarily about self improvement. However, a woman should no that you're interested but have no strong expectations. If you go into it with clear interest but a light-hearted attitude (rather than expectation of finding a wife say) they will be greatly more interested than when they sense big expectations. Above all, if you treat something like your life is hanging on it early on, they'll almost always run a mile. It's not like in films where a secret undying love is finally revealed and the girl reciprocates. Very rare indeed. In the real life, the guy who goes with interest but a casual manner is the one who appeals- not the all or nothing shot.

P.S. nyiregyhazi - if it doesn't hurt asking - how much experience do you have with relationships?

I went out with just one girl for a few months recently. Before that I was seeing various different ones at once on a casual basis for the past couple of years. Back to that again now. Dating a few different people at once is really good for you- but be open about it. It stops you falling in love with someone merely because they are there at the time and becoming clingy and needy.



[/quote]

[nyiregyhazi]

It's just not useful to start anticipating "girl behavior" and "guy behavior" and act on those stereotypes when trying to build a relationship. You must see the actual person, not the group she belongs to. You learn about that person as you go.

I'm wondering, do you see differences between sexes in animal behaviours down to being merely about societal norms- or do you can you actually appreciate that it simply exists in the genetic blue-print? Yes, other animals have societies too. However it doesn't matter where it comes from. A guy who wants to pull needs to know about real world differences between male and female attraction- not have some ridiculous ideological myth shoved down his throat. It amuses me tremendously that you actually have to acknowledge differences yourself- yet then feel a need to blame it on factors other than genetics, in order to preserve your belief system. It's widely known that genetics carry mental differences between sexes and not just physical ones. Have you never even heard of the fact that testosterone and oestrogen as hormones actually influence the brain? Is it too much of a "stereotype" to be aware that sex rather reliably influences which is present to the largest degree?

Only ideological bias leads to the assumption that men and women are without ingrained differences via genetics- not evidence or logic. And in the real world, all that matters is what these massively strong trends are- not whether they are from nature or nurture. It's easy to scoff at facts in favour of ideology from your arm chair, but for guys who need to understand female characteristics in order to be successful with women- getting an objective grasp on the tendencies of the real world is actually rather important. They don't need to be cock-blocked by someome spouting the myth that all women are entirely unique in every way- and thus that there is nothing a guy can do to improve himself, other than wait for a rare special girl who is actually drawn towards needy and insecure behaviour patterns from guys who are not open about their intentions. Such girls are not only extremely rare, but generally riddled with undesirable character traits themselves. Even if you meet one, would you want them? Far better to improve yourself until you're in a position where you're choosing what you actually desire, than merely looking for whatever will have you, in your present state.

[theholygideons]

Honestly, the only thing constant is going to be the truth. Therefore, you should not hesitate to express the fundamental essence of your emotions, as her perception of you are unlikely going to change, whether or not it is in your favor. Remember, if you were truly acting in line with your intrinsic desires, then you would not feel any tension and anger, you would just accept the fact it failed, and move on. As long as you're not someone who has the social intelligence of a potato, sooner or later, a female is going to complement your beliefs and values and become attracted to it, while trying to satisfy others women is going to get you no where. NO WHERE. you're better off going brokeback mountain, my found.  

[outin]

I'm wondering, do you see differences between sexes in animal behaviours down to being merely about societal norms- or do you can you actually appreciate that it simply exists in the genetic blue-print?

Nothing is merely about societal norms, not in human either. But unlike you I am able to see things from several different perspectives at the same time.

But indeed as someone who has bred animals of several species over 25 years, I have seen in practice how EVEN with more evolved animals the differences between individuals can be more significant than the differences between sexes when it comes to behavior in different situations. In the case of animals, that is probably largely from genetic variation.

[nyiregyhazi]

Nothing is merely about societal norms, not in human either. But unlike you I am able to see things from several different perspectives at the same time.

But indeed as someone who has bred animals of several species over 25 years, I have seen in practice how EVEN with more evolved animals the differences between individuals can be more significant than the differences between sexes when it comes to behavior in different situations. In the case of animals, that is probably largely from genetic variation.

Can, yes. But to recognise a powerful trend does not mean writing off all exceptions. It means using information to your benefit, from an informed rather than naive position. People who win at poker do so by noticing trends and getting a high percentage bet out of that knowledge about their opponents, not by 100 percent certainties. It's just silly to write things off based on some exceptions. Even a marginal edge is enough to make money in poker, in the long run. The sheer prevalence of aspects of what generates attraction are widely present to the point where a game of poker would just be free money, if the percentages were to tip so far. A man who doesn't even know how widely undesirable certain behaviour patterns are has about as much edge as poker player who always goes all in if he gets a 3 and 5 off suit.

You might as well apply the same arguments to pianism- it's complex and all pieces are different so we shouldn't ever make any observations about things that tend to work and things that tend to fail. People should just "be themselves" when it comes to to technique and hope to find a piece that's a good match for them, rather than develop in order to have a choice about what they want.


Also, how many of those differences were based on mating rituals- given that this is the specific thing being discussed? How did the females respond to the unconfident males who just loitered shyly, without trying to initiate anything?

[flashyfingers]

If I were you, I'd keep it cool. Obsessing about it, especially really obsessing about it by making a post on piano street (not completely anonymous) and discussing it openly, is the opposite of keeping it cool. But obviously, through stating your feelings on what you believe the situation to be, you have already dismissed that which may have been particularly strong feeling for a girl, to actually be feelings about the situation of which you have become a part of, wooing of females, the mating ritual, and such. (Embarrassment, rejection, confusion, etc. )

Welcome to the dark side

[cuberdrift]

Amusingly, this thread has already managed to outpost Cabby Num's "Girl Trouble" thread. 

[outin]

Also, how many of those differences were based on mating rituals- given that this is the specific thing being discussed? How did the females respond to the unconfident males who just loitered shyly, without trying to initiate anything?

First I must point out that in humans it's really not possible to separate mating rituals from a broader social context, even though some sociobiologists like to take such an approach. Are we assuming here that casual or one time sexual encounter is the only goal when approaching the opposite sex? If so, the most effctive way to achieve that would probably be to make sure there's enough alcohol served 

Anyway, it does differ how females react to shy males as well as more agressive ones. Certain temperaments do suit together better. But rarely does it not work out at all, usually when given time the two parties somehow manage to get together.

That said neither people or animals will react favorably to someone who presents fear. Some reserve or shyness does not usually make a person unattractive, but fear surely does. One should be at least moderately comfortable with the way one acts in a situation to avoid that.

[nyiregyhazi]

First I must point out that in humans it's really not possible to separate mating rituals from a broader social context, even though some sociobiologists like to take such an approach. Are we assuming here that casual or one time sexual encounter is the only goal when approaching the opposite sex? If so, the most effctive way to achieve that would probably be to make sure there's enough alcohol served  

Anyway, it does differ how females react to shy males as well as more agressive ones. Certain temperaments do suit together better. But rarely does it not work out at all, usually when given time the two parties somehow manage to get together.

That said neither people or animals will react favorably to someone who presents fear. Some reserve or shyness does not usually make a person unattractive, but fear surely does. One should be at least moderately comfortable with the way one acts in a situation to avoid that.

We're not assuming anything, other than the general differences between male and female attraction, which make for powerful and overwhelmingly strong trends. Any male who want to succeed with women needs either to be lucky enough to have very good instincts, or to learn about these trends- not be told that men and women are the same or that seeing as everyone is different there are no common traits in each sex.

PS You've been claiming to be scientific but the end of the second paragraph is a spectacularly silly statement. Based on what evidence? It can only be concluded based on the assumption that if people don't get together they therefore weren't supposed to. How might you judge if they were? That's transparent circular logic and inherently absurd. The only examples considered are the positives. What possible basis is there to judge that people who didn't get together weren't supposed to? When I was younger, I was shy and would do nothing about it at all if attractive women smiled at me. If anything, I was substantially inclined to actively avoid talking to anyone I found attractive. Had I been more confident at the time, there were plenty of available opportunities to me. But women don't generally pursue a shy guy who is not proactive or confident. To think that any two people who could have got on well together will be led together by fate is to live in a delusional fantasy land and it's not supported by any meaningful evidence whatsoever. Men who want to have meaningful opportunities need to develop themself, not live in some absurd fantasy that if the right girl comes along, fate will bring them together (while they simply sit around in their room masturbating all day, rather than have the confidence to show their intentions). This is reality, not a bad film. I can't believe you seriously even suggested such absurd nonsense. That's something you say to give a failing guy false hope that things will magically change, without him doing anything to change them, not reality. Failing guys need to learn how female attraction works, in order to gain genuine hope.

[outin]

We're not assuming anything,

Actually that's exactly what you are doing. As we all are, all the time.

PS You've been claiming to be scientific but the end of the second paragraph is a spectacularly silly statement. Based on what evidence?

Excuse me? You asked about my experiences with animal mating behavior and I told you what I have observed. That was no attempt to do any kind of scientific analysis. I guess you just didn't see the context and thought I was talking about people  

[nyiregyhazi]

Actually that's exactly what you are doing. As we all are, all the time.

Excuse me? You asked about my experiences with animal mating behavior and I told you what I have observed. That was no attempt to do any kind of scientific analysis. I guess you just didn't see the context and thought I was talking about people  

Ah, okay. But animals or people, it's the same assumptions about fate and the same basis of ignoring negatives and considering positives as if inevitable. Fated couplings are no truer in animals than in humans.

Edit- or are you talking about leaving two animals together in private? You didn't give much context to the scenario. That's not really very pertinent if so. Two humans locked in a cell together for long enough would probably have sex eventually unless one is significantly undesirable, given enough time (potentially rather a long time indeed, when considering humans). Lack of opportunity and being isolated with only one possible mate drops standards and also sets a situation where even shy people can eventually become comfortable enough together. Not really a likely scenario for humans to pull in though. We need to be looking at out in the natural world with plenty of competition, for any examples to be of relevance to the matter. Those who don't know the mating rituals don't fare well there with females and neither do humans.

Regarding the first sentence, if you want to quote me then quote the whole sentence and reply to that- so it actually means what I stated.

[outin]

Ah, okay. But animals or people, it's the same assumptions about fate and the same basis of ignoring negatives and considering positives as if inevitable. Fated couplings are no truer in animals than in humans.

Edit- or are you talking about leaving two animals together in private? You didn't give much context to the scenario. That's not really very pertinent if so. Two humans locked in a cell together for long enough would probably have sex eventually unless one us significantly undesirable, given enough time (potentially rather a long time indeed, when considering humans). Lack of opportunity and being isolated with only one possible mate drops standards. Not really a likely scenario for humans to pull in though. We need to be looking at out in the natural world with plenty of competition, for any examples to be of relevance to the matter. Those who don't know the mating rituals don't fare well there with females and neither do humans.

I don't believe in fate. Chance is too important.
So what I meant was that even when the temperaments are not well suited, mating behavior usually happens after a while when enough time is given. Not that I think this has much relevance for human relationships. IMO There's no point in looking at the behavior of animals in the nature to learn about human behavior, because our environment has already become so completely unnatural, eliminating most of the processes from a more natural setting. We are talking about happenings in facebook here...
I do not dismiss all the ideas of sociobiology, but they must be kept in their context, which is usually quite far from the more complex reality.

Regarding the first sentence, if you want to quote me then quote the whole sentence and reply to that- so it actually means what I stated.

Sorry...try not to do that again.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't believe in fate. Chance is too important.
So what I meant was that even when the temperaments are not well suited, mating behavior usually happens after a while when enough time is given. Not that I think this has much relevance for human relationships. IMO There's no point in looking at the behavior of animals in the nature to learn about human behavior, because our environment has already become so completely unnatural, eliminating most of the processes from a more natural setting. We are talking about happenings in facebook here...
I do not dismiss all the ideas of sociobiology, but they must be kept in their context, which is usually quite far from the more complex reality.


Sorry...try not to do that again.

You still didn't clarify though if you're indeed speaking of two animals isolated together- who presumably wouldn't otherwise even be left in contact with other members of the opposite sex? The problem with that argument is that even if you don't believe in fate, the surface of how you are portraying it suggests it be in favour of the idea that the right people for each other will just magically come together, given time (and that if not it wasn't meant to be). However, given the circumstances involved (and the fact that humans don't get isolated altogether from the opposite sex before then being left in an enclosed space with a single member of the opposite sex, until they have sex) it has no bearing on either human mating or even on general animal mating in the natural world. Those who mate in the wider world, be they human or animal, have to get the mating rituals right. While animals only have their instincts, men with bad instincts can overcome that and learn these things- by knowing more about what generates attraction in the female sex.

However unnatural you might call our environment, it's nowhere near as spectacularly unnatural as the scenario in which your animal example occurs. The animals who are shy but eventually mate when left with a single female would quite possibly be left in the dust in a wider world- just as shy humans often tend to be for most of their lives, if not all of their life. Wider opportunity is a hugely determinant ingredient in mating patterns. People settle more easily if opportunities are few and far between and there are less stringent demands (which is why traditionally unattractive women are usually the ones who are more open to needy men, whereas attractive ones almost always run a mile). You only need to look at quite how picky women are in speed-dating to see how width of opportunity breeds extreme choosiness. In fairness, in very small shut off villages it becomes a little more like your example, but most humans are not enclosed into a tiny space with only one potential mate to consider.

[outin]

Those who mate in the wider world, be they human or animal, have to get the mating rituals right. While animals only have their instincts, humans with bad instincts can learn these things.

That may be true to some extend, but we obviously do not agree on what are the most effective mating rituals in the case of humans and whether those are universal or highly depended on cultural and individual factors (which to complicate things further are not constant). Neither of us will be able to present any hard evidence complete enough (it simply does not exist). I'm not going to spend more time trying to turn your head, your ideas seem to work well for you. Everyone else must use their own mind to evaluate what has been said.

Hopefully the OP got some new perspectives anyway.

[nyiregyhazi]

That may be true to some extend, but we obviously do not agree on what are the most effective mating rituals in the case of humans and whether those are universal or highly depended on cultural and individual factors (which to complicate things further are not constant). Neither of us will be able to present any hard evidence complete enough (it simply does not exist).

Actually, there is an abundance of evidence in many places, if you are willing to consider it. Nowhere more so than selectivity levels on dating websites or speed-dating etc. The differences aren't even subtle. They are spectacular. Even the least attractive women I know are spectacularly selective about who they will show interest in  on dating websites. Simply because evidence has not been officially gathered in all areas or formed conclusively complete picture of every single detail, it does not make it good scientific practise to casually write things off based on preconceptions or to default to (a highly illogical) assumption that there are no strong gender tendencies. That is not a rational view to fall back on and there's abundant evidence to say that this is totally unsound as a default position.

If you think I ever said there's a single magic formula to attract any woman at will, you missed my point. What I said is that there are a number of extremely consistent yet not failsafe trends- just as a poker player will play bets without certainty of necessarily winning every time, but with advantaged odds. Above all, in terms of UNattractive behaviours, there are some very universal principles that are phenomenally prevalent. Attractive behaviours are more variable, but there are relatively clear boundaries between things which are almost universally negative and things which will tend to have a high percentage chance of being positive. Just like with a pianism, there are a range of different right ways, but it's the wrong ways that you need to know how to steer well clear of. Nobody should allow themself to be that poor fool who sits around for years on end getting no female interest, kidding himself that the right person just didn't come along yet but may be around the corner. If that guy doesn't change himself for the better, nobody is waiting around the corner.

[outin]

Actually, there is an abundance of evidence in many places, if you are willing to consider it.

In that case what you consider hard evidence, I do not.

Simply because evidence has not been officially gather in all areas or conlusively complete picture of every single detail, it does not make it good scientific practise to casually write things off based on preconceptions or to default to an illogical assumption that there are no strong gender tendencies.

I have been trained to think like a scientist. I do not casually write off things based on preconceptions. I do however not give much value to theories based on random bits of "evidence" or logic that would not withstand scientific scrutiny.

In addition to that I do understand the limitations of applying theories to practice.

[nyiregyhazi]

In that case what you consider hard evidence, I do not.

I have been trained to think like a scientist. I do not casually write off things based on preconceptions. I do however not give much value to theories based on random bits of "evidence" or logic that would not withstand scientific scrutiny.

In addition to that I do understand the limitations of applying theories to practice.

It would withstand scrutiny. You just don't want to hear it. Go and seek out some statistics about behaviour patterns on dating websites. The trends are way too strong to be mere random anomalies. As already stated, given that testosterone and oestrogen affect the brain, it would be actively irrational to even theorise that men and women would tend to behave purely as individuals and without sex specific traits (and this comprehensive counterproof is but one single influential factor among many). The things I've mentioned aren't even suprising- or at least they wouldn't be to anyone who has discussed these matters with a wide range of both males and females who use such sites and been unable to miss the presence of consistent prevailing trends. Be skeptical, but don't be a cynic who assumes all real world observations are either bogus or random anomalies and dismisses without further research. If you doubt these things so much I suggest you do your own investigations into them before scoffing. A scientist looks for further evidence either to confirm or deny- they don't casually dismiss things in favour of a preformed belief which is actively refuted by both logic and a wealth of very credible statistical evidence.

[nyiregyhazi]

https://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/121/2/673.abstract

Here's a study that states exactly what I told you- that males judge each case on its own merits, whereas women become extremely selective given a larger group size. Anyone who has experience of these things in the real world and any observational skills will know these things to be true. But if you really need evidence for it then there you go. Time for a rethink about all the myths, I'm afraid. If you think science has failed to support the notable gender differences that exist in behaviour patterns, you are simply having a laugh.

[outin]

https://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/121/2/673.abstract

Here's a study that states exactly what I told you- that males judge each case on its own merits, whereas women become extremely selective given a larger group size. Anyone who has experience of these things in the real world and any observational skills will know these things to be true. But if you really need evidence for it then there you go. Time for a rethink about all the myths, I'm afraid. If you think science has failed to support the notable gender differences that exist in behaviour patterns, you are simply having a laugh.

Sorry, but what's your science background? A lot of what you write would never withstand any kind of scientific scrutiny. Anyone can google an abstract of an article, but have you actually read that arcticle or do you understand the research methods or the research setting? Doesn't seem so. You should note that this article was published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics and if you look at the writers, you'll see that they come from faculties of Business Studies, that alone puts the article into a certain context.

I could write an essay with a long list of sources on this subject, but I simply do not want to waste more time on it, since I doubt it would interest most people on this forum. It would change nothing in your case, since you are not willing to learn.

[nyiregyhazi]

Sorry, but what's your science background? A lot of what you write would never withstand any kind of scientific scrutiny. Anyone can google an abstract of an article, but have you actually read that arcticle or do you understand the research methods or the research setting? Doesn't seem so. You should note that this article was published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics and if you look at the writers, you'll see that they come from faculties of Business Studies, that alone puts the article into a certain context.

I could write an essay with a long list of sources on this subject, but I simply do not want to waste more time on it, since I doubt it would interest most people on this forum. It would change nothing in your case, since you are not willing to learn.

So all economists are incapable of statistics therefore any data they collect can be casually written off, without so much as the need to explore further or even provide contrary data from a source of your own. That's not the attitude of a scientist. That's the attitude of someone who isn't interested in giving consideration to anything but their present belief system. Do you think quite such a flimsy case for debunking would stand up in a scientific paper? We have nothing to discuss if your mind is quite so closed and you are willing to write off conflicting information on quite such a flimsy and purely speculative basis, without even having contrary evidence from a single source. That's not even the only experiment to have observed such differences. You just aren't willing to reconsider beliefs or even explore this issue far enough to gain an informed opinion. If you care so much, link the data that detected no sex based differences in speed dating. Have you found such data anywhere? If not, why such unshakeable belief in something you have zero evidence for and why the bizarre assumption that no economist could be trusted to gather accurate data? That's not science. That's closed minded cynicism.

As I said before, count yourself lucky that you're not a man who needs to be aware of these things to succeed with females. It's just as well you're in a position where you can afford to be ignorant to the very different nature of male vs female attraction. You can enjoy your version of reality from your armchair, but those who spend years failing really need awareness of how reality actually stands in order to learn how to succeed within it- not an ideal based concoction that can only be perpetuated by casual cynicism to reams of conflicting evidence.

[outin]

So all economists are incapable of statistics therefore any data they collect can be casually written off, without so much as the need to explore further or even provide contrary data from a source of your own.

I have said no such thing. It may be a fine study indeed. You didn't get my point because your thinking processes are too limited. You don't need to answer my question about your background in science because it's so obvious you have little.

We have nothing to discuss

You are right here.

Oops, did it again....

[nyiregyhazi]

I have said no such thing. It may be a fine study indeed. You didn't get my point because your thinking processes are too limited. You don't need to answer my question about your background in science because it's so obvious you have little.

Science procedure speaks for itself. I don't need to prove anything to you so I'll stick to the scientific method. You need to illustrate your basis for certainty that the experiment I linked was flawed. A true scientist would start by either illustrating specific flaws, or finding research that made conflicting findings. No true scientist would dismiss it casually, without either contrary evidence of a specific basis on which to doubt that an economist can gather accurate data. That's fundamentalism, not science. The only reason you doubt it, is because you wouldn't like the findings to be true. You have no evidence, sadly, that they are not. I can link other scientific papers that they are indeed. Stop being so small minded and look at the world with an open mind.

[nyiregyhazi]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/changing-the-dating-game/

Here's another from a science magazine. What a great pity that they didn't have you around the publishers to cast around a load of unscientific hearsay, and get it stricken from the records for not fitting your unshakeable preconceived assumptions about men and women.

Note how the balance swayed when they reversed roles, but the balance did not reverse. Here we have a gender difference. Women are just choosy, but circumstance can make men choosy too, or make them significantly less so. My theory is that when a man has women coming to him, he unconsciously feels more popular and less likely to need to consider marginal cases in order to get matches. When he is going around, he doesn't feel as if he already has prior approval and thus subconsciously expects fewer women to tick him. It's natural that a man who feels as if he has women coming to him can afford to be more choosy (even though it's really an illusion in speed dating), than one who doesn't get approached and who instead has to try to win favour by approaching females. I don't agree with the article when it tries to write this off based on the person's perceived confidence. There's not a simple enough correlation to presume thwt the confidence scores would write off the likelihood of feeling unconsciously more desirable.

Although the article suggests we're not so different after all, it forgets that men being approached by women is less normal and only occurs widely for ultra-high status males (and rarely for low status shy males). Normally it's women who it get approached by men. Although judgmentalism becomes more equal when the balance is tipped by unusual circumstances, the men going from woman to woman and trying to win favour is really the normal turn of events in nature and where we really see massive gender differences. In normal circumstances, women are by far the most choosy. In circumstances where a man feels as if he has plenty of women trying to win his favour, he becomes choosy too. No equality there, sorry- except in this synthetic situation where even a shy quiet guy can get approached by women (who probably aren't actually interested but have to follow protocol). All speed dating is a little synthetic but the normal one is closest to the natural course of events in the normal world. Although they try to stress some similarities, when you weigh up how much closer the normal version is closer to nature, it really shows off the gender differences.

[outin]

Science procedure speaks for itself. I don't need to prove anything to you so I'll stick to the scientific method. You need to illustrate your basis for certainty that the experiment I linked was flawed. A true scientist would start by either illustrating specific flaws, or finding research that made conflicting findings. No true scientist would dismiss it casually, without either contrary evidence of a specific basis on which to doubt that an economist can gather accurate data. That's fundamentalism, not science. The only reason you doubt it, is because you wouldn't like the findings to be true. You have no evidence, sadly, that they are not. I can link other scientific papers that they are indeed. Stop being so small minded and look at the world with an open mind.

But it is you who are showing quite a lot of fundamentalism and also not enough understanding of the scientific method you speak of. Science procedure only speaks correctly to those who have enough means to evaluate it. Laymen usually just don't, so they make all kinds of faulty conclusions.

To generalize a couple of empirical studies on speed dating to all human relationship behavior is just silly. If you did read the study you can tell me whether these were actual events or if the researchers were able to use a more representative sample of people and so design a scientific experiment instead of just observing? The limitations of the findings of the first option should be clear.  

And as it often is with empirical studies on people, the findings don't even seem to be that conclusive, one way or the other. Here's a quote from the article you just linked yourself:
"...As reported in the October 2009 issue of Psychological Science, the well-known gender difference vanished when men and women assumed more egalitarian roles—when women made the rounds and men sat, both sexes were equally choosy. This finding is not a complete reversal of the old rule, however; the seated men were not choosier than the traveling women, the way seated women are choosier than men in the traditional speed-dating setup. This suggests that the ancient tendencies still exist but may be less influential than previously thought, because they are also reinforced by arbitrary social norms such as the convention that men usually approach women when there is potential for romance."

Even though the case of speed dating has very limited relevance to our original subject, I think it shows well the flaws in your method.

You need to illustrate your basis for certainty that the experiment I linked was flawed.

And obviously it is necessary for me to repeat myself. I have no problems with the findings of that study. I never said it was flawed and even explicitly pointed out that I do not think so. You just don't want to see how limited the relevancy of that study is to this discussion. Because you are on a mission to preach. Talking to you is often like talking to religious people about god. And you don't seem to mind putting words into the other party's mouth to further your cause. Or maybe you just read so selectively.  

I really have wasted enough time on you today, so I will not continue this discussion. Feel free to have the last word, I am sure you'll come up with more wild theories about how I think

[nyiregyhazi]

You can use the same lazy argument against literally any set of statistics that didn't survey every one in the world in a flawlessly comparable manner. It's not a valid basis to refute anything you like. If the stats are an aberration, you need to either show specific flaws in gathering them or show alternative experiments that found significantly conflicting patterns. It's just not acceptable science to scoff at all empirical data that is inconvenient, merely because it didn't survey the whole planet. You need to do better than that to question data in a meaningful and intellectually mature fashion.  And if you're claiming that attraction in a series of short meetings has zero  relationship to attraction in other first meetings, you're having a laugh. Only a situation where men are approached by numerous women is synthetic. Men approaching many women and women being approached by many men is a normal nightclub evening. The same trends are highly visible on dating websites and among attractive women with many real world suitors. That's a very poor attempt to refute the data based on relevance. If you had ever tried being a man for a day, you'd discover in no time at all that the findings about how much more selective females are run throughout everything related to sex and dating. You simply haven't lived from the side that gets to see this in action.

Seeing as you're now saying you agree with what u previously tried to rubbish for being the work of econonomists, I think you should summarise precisely what you are disagreeing with and also summarise exactly what your alternative beliefs are. You're trying to tell me I'm wrong about everything, but you're not actually being at all specific about precisely what or offering any sources to provide evidence to the contrary. Stop telling us how scientific you are and start showing us instead. Offering generic dissent without specifying precisely what you feel is incorrect or offering any contrary evidence is cynicism, not science.

[cuberdrift]

Just like with a pianism, there are a range of different right ways, but it's the wrong ways that you need to know how to steer well clear of. Nobody should allow themself to be that poor fool who sits around for years on end getting no female interest, kidding himself that the right person just didn't come along yet but may be around the corner. If that guy doesn't change himself for the better, nobody is waiting around the corner.

Except that I'm dealing with actual individuals, not piano repertoire. I do get your analogy though. This seems to conflict with outin's. Outin encourages me to "just be myself" - an advice that may (no offense intended) almost sound cliche as I hear it from countless sources - which probably won't seem to work particularly well with mastering the repertoire of a composer or genre you aren't particularly interested in.

Am I to treat people like piano pieces?

If I were you, I'd keep it cool. Obsessing about it, especially really obsessing about it by making a post on piano street (not completely anonymous) and discussing it openly, is the opposite of keeping it cool. But obviously, through stating your feelings on what you believe the situation to be, you have already dismissed that which may have been particularly strong feeling for a girl, to actually be feelings about the situation of which you have become a part of, wooing of females, the mating ritual, and such. (Embarrassment, rejection, confusion, etc. )

Welcome to the dark side

What's wrong with having a personal issue brought up for discussion? Already I have indirectly spawned a debate which has unleashed lots of useful info right here.  

That said, you are right that I don't have any "strong feelings" for that girl, and my concern lies more in how my interrogative sentence failed to garner a proper response within several days when it became clear that she saw it (or so Facebook tells me).

Honestly, the only thing constant is going to be the truth. Therefore, you should not hesitate to express the fundamental essence of your emotions, as her perception of you are unlikely going to change, whether or not it is in your favor. Remember, if you were truly acting in line with your intrinsic desires, then you would not feel any tension and anger, you would just accept the fact it failed, and move on. As long as you're not someone who has the social intelligence of a potato, sooner or later, a female is going to complement your beliefs and values and become attracted to it, while trying to satisfy others women is going to get you no where. NO WHERE. you're better off going brokeback mountain, my found.  

Yet another approach in conflict with nyiregyhazi's. You advice me to "be honest", Nyiregyhazi tells me to compromise or reserve said honesty on behalf of a more strategic method. Can't tell which I should follow.

I don't feel like making the effort to quote any of the further comments since they are primarily expressed between Nyiregyhazi and outin. But for now, I see a rather diverse answer here.

Bob tells me not to bother understanding women, which is in stark and blatant contrast to Nyiregyhazi's "realist/opportunist" approach. Outin claims to know a wider background than Nyiregyhazi and tells me to "be myself".

I'm just a little bit concerned about Nyiregyhazi's method. Am I to treat women like consumers? As a guy, am I supposed to be a Buyers' Market? I have never, or have hardly, in my life tried to ever think this way about anyone. I hope you (Nyiregyhazi) have it in your head that I never entertained the thought of that girl even being a potential date therefore I had no intent on "impressing" and/or "wooing" her. That's just never been my language.

Either she 1) Genuinely didn't see it for some reason, 2) Is being spectacularly lazy, 3) Forgot about it, 4) Is being a spectacular snob, or 5) Is a cold-hearted, unfeeling opportunist that fits your generalization of women.  

That being said, this issue's pretty old, but it doesn't hurt to keep these discussions going.

[outin]

Outin encourages me to "just be myself" - an advice that may (no offense intended) almost sound cliche as I hear it from countless sources - which probably won't seem to work particularly well with mastering the repertoire of a composer or genre you aren't particularly interested in.

Just to make it absolutely clear:
Nothing I wrote in this thread is about playing the piano and I do not see it necessary to have such analogies.

Either she 1) Genuinely didn't see it for some reason, 2) Is being spectacularly lazy, 3) Forgot about it, 4) Is being a spectacular snob, or 5) Is a cold-hearted, unfeeling opportunist that fits your generalization of women.  

You actually forgot one explanation that I gave earlier: 6) She doesn't feel comfortable discussing the study issue at the moment.

[cuberdrift]

I feel like being persistent here. After some days of isolation from this thread I just felt an urge to review the perspectives which have come across while I was away, and those which I had already read, yet didn't find the time or energy to react in a more comprehensive manner which I am about to do now.

People who are not prone to rational thinking...or not much individual thinking at all.

You referenced women who probably aren't that smart, women who eventually came to serve as the basis for Nyiregyhazi's theories. How are you sure that they aren't the 'smartest kind'? By stating so you are also saying that women who behave the way Nyiregyhazi generalizes them to behave aren't very intelligent. How then should smarter women behave? On what bases have you made this statement?

I can assure you that there are plenty of women out there who you will be able to interact without any specific "strategies". Being yourself and comfortable with it is actually the most effective way of attracting the opposite sex (apart from good looks which are not much in your control).

You seem awfully sure here. Have you had past experiences which all confirmed this? How can being "myself and comfortable" effectively debunk nyiregy's findings about women being extremely choosy in a large environment? If I were naturally reclusive, and therefore be that way even when dealing with women, I'd be "left in the dust" (Nyiregyhazi 2014). I'm not saying I prefer nyiregy's theory. But what's to support this conclusion?

Life is full of such small disappointments, mostly just caused by chance. The solution is to move on and see what happens.

Quite right. I guess this spares me the pain of having to spend great lengths trying to stop and analyze a small thing.

But in general it is true that neither men nor women often respond well if someone they are not close with appears too needy.

Without doubt I agree.

It's quite sad to see those who have a different nature try to take advice from people with super self-confidence and an opportunist take on life. They will crash and burn, due to not truly being themselves. Even if not being too obvious and found out, they will end up in relationships that will give them little pleasure and a lot of stress because they are continuously required to keep up a role so unnatural to them.

I think this may be the reason I find Nyiregy's advice, though somehow reasonable...unnerving. It's a good thing to have a well-rounded background on what attracts women, but I am not fond of the idea of subscribing to the dozens of 'attractive' macho men who do indeed attract lots of women while having to sacrifice my true individuality and genuine nature. I simply won't buy it. I haven't met any girl attractive enough to make me possibly entertain the idea of giving up who I really am in exchange for a more externally sexy facade, if that sexy facade is one I myself don't think is sexy, anyway (in short, I wouldn't even dare play the character that doesn't suit my taste just to court even the hottest lady). While this may not be exactly what Nyiregy thinks a successful male should be, I just want to stress that I'm not buying into the idea of forcing another personality in me. Even for a hot girl.

If I know a hot girl, who likes cars, physical wealth, shapely abs, and all sorts of worldly things I have never in my life been crazy about, I won't force myself to have expensive cars and shapely abs. I'm content with my "piano life" (though admittedly having a shapely body shouldn't hurt).

There is one thing though - how are you so sure they will "crash and burn"? Have you seen anyone condemn him/herself to that fate for keeping this unnatural role? I tend to find it difficult to believe you unless you provide sufficient evidence or at least some credible personal experience.

But still my advice is not to give much credit to advice from people who you do not know personally, who do not know you and have no professional expertise. The ability to write lengthy explanations on things often does not reflect real understanding of them. It's quite easy to write a lot of BS that looks smart on superficial inspection, but that's not science

Are you referring to Nyiregyhazi? It looks like a lot of his assumptions are based on rather consistent trends. You yourself agree with the sources he posted. I agree that there's more to life than living it by research, and that life experience should also be considered, but how far do you think his explanations fall on being "lengthy explanations...that do not reflect real understanding of [what attracts women]"?

Now back to an older comment of yours...

Are you serious? I guess you are... Maybe it would be better if you just keep your advice to piano playing where you at least seem to have some expertice...  

You don't believe men are the best sources? Why? Do they usually have an inaccurate understanding of what attracts women?

I have never found it difficult to understand either men or women and quite naturally interact with both genders. As do most of my friends. Normal open communication is the key, not assuming complexity and suspect game playing where there is none.

See here. I haven't really, really ever planned to "attract" or court said girl. What I anticipated (the answer from her) was just simply what I was subconsciously expecting, out of previous experiences involving conversations, both in person and through other mediums, with women (including her). The problem I think lies in Nyiregyhazi thinking that I'm a guy who is insecure with himself, is terribly disappointed with his sex life, is getting unreliable advice from people who don't know a cent about what attracts women and thus is bound to fail should he look for someone to date. NO. I'm not looking for a date. It's just that I find it rather weird and pretty disappointing not to have a simple question answered even when Facebook told me she saw it in a span of several days. These things usually don't happen (except with some other girl before...well that's a long embarrassing story...) even with women so I was slightly affronted by it, and, thinking it was better off to remind her to reply rather than garner no response at all, I did that follow-up comment which Nyiregy claims is so disastrous to a woman (I hope it isn't, of course). The thing is I had no qualms about whether or not this girl would find it unattractive and would "run a mile away" (Nyiregyhazi 2014) from it, I guess I just gave in to my impatience and thus did not hesitate to insert that stupid remark. I was merely anticipating a normal, comfortable chat without any pretension.

I think Nyiregyhazi is getting the idea that I'm looking for a date. Again, I am NOT looking for a date with anyone. I'm just ranting about the fact that I didn't get answered, since I 1)Don't have much experience dealing with women (especially online), so I'm particularly sensitive and wary and 2)People usually answer a question at the shortest possible time if Facebook tells me they saw that question.

I must appreciate the effort Nyiregyhazi has made to offer his perspective, however, on dating, which I may find useful one way or another. Either way I must let him know that I am not complaining about my inability to court women.

Shame on you if you seriously think that it's a sign of poor intelligence for a woman to have been influenced by aspects of standard evolution. It was a tribute to their intelligence that they actually observed themself so accurately

If it is a tribute that they observed themselves so accurately, shouldn't it be a tribute as well that the guy in question observed himself accurately? He has done no sin, even if it turned off the girl in question. Again this reinforces the sad reality that men have to be so crafty just to handle a relationship with someone they love. It is this that unnerves me. An ideal, solid relationship should be built on trust and mutual understanding. Now I cannot delve further here since I have never actually been in one, but I think I remember reading somewhere...

...yes, it was from the "Girl Trouble" thread uttered by the unpopular faulty_damper  :

Love is not an emotion.  Love feels like the way you feel about your mom, not the romanticized version you see in Disney movies.

"Love feels like the way you feel about your mom". While we can of course get turned off by our own parents, the relationship stays intact and it is generally too well-established to be deconstructed. Then again that guy you were referring to may probably have fallen into infatuation as well...

Women are the worst of all to try to learn from, sorry.

What actual life experiences have you had in order to come up with this conclusion? You say you learned it "the hard way". If you don't mind, could you mention said incident/s?

It's simply crazy for a frustrated man not to make the most of available knowledge about psychology, in order to learn where he goes wrong.

I would have to stress that I would not hesitate studying some of your "psychology" if I had the opportunity should I ever want a date, because I see no reason to.

You are, of course, emphasizing on the fact that I had come up with that particular follow-up comment. Again, this was quite casually put in without much regard to whether or not she may have found it attractive or not. I probably wasn't in the state of mind to want to attract her, as well as not knowing how it could make a woman "run a mile away" from me.

Tell me - if you had a casual female friend, who doesn't reply to you, and after a few days you respond, asking her if she got the messages - would she board a train and leave her city to get away from the unattractive likes of you (not that running a mile can make one lose internet connection though, on second thought. lol  )?

The type of person who vents about these things in a piano forum is the type of person who urgently needs to seek assistance about how to be a stronger and more secure person...

I don't know if what you assume about me is true - although I do have little experience dealing with women online, I'm not THAT insecure in regards to women...

...especially if it involves a piano performance in front of attractive ones  .

She's her own person and doesn't owe some guy she met a few times anything, merely because he hoped she was under an unwritten contract to message him within time limits.

So you wouldn't be bugged about someone who saw your question never answer it? I would've just ignored that fact, but at that time I thought rather than letting it vanish into thin air, maybe I could remind her that I actually existed...or maybe I just wanted to be blunt and direct. Either way I didn't think thrice about it. Too bad it happened. No, let's be glad it happened, 'cause it not for it we wouldn't have this thread discussing the differences between male and female behavior, debating over studies revolving around what really attracts women, and saving insecure males from being manipulated by evil females  .

Instant fail. It's waters off a ducks back for a strong male. Your message shows you are investing too much, expecting things in return without having the strength to actually show your interest and easily annoyed. A strong male either carries on as if nothing happened, waits plenty longer than a day, or at least jokes in the repeat request so as not to clingy and insecure.

I have never been seasoned with your covert methods. I would agree that that might have been the better decision, but again I was faced with that or nothing at all. It just took the click of a button to send that message. I may have appeared clingy and insecure, but what's to stop me from wondering why a read question wasn't answered? I hope that girl was smart enough to assume this instead of the former. Basically one wouldn't leave a short question unanswered for days on end if s/he saw it, and based on my experiences this seldom happens. That's just the context behind why I had to do that stupid remark.

Women don't divine your expectations and you don't have a god given right to reciprocation.

I never really purposefully made myself aware that I had a "god given right to reciprocation". Nor do I establish myself as a male who should be highly regarded by women and answered when he pokes into their insipid little lives (tempting to think so as it may be, being a "pianist" and all, I never decidedly exude it). It's just basic ethics. Someone calls your name, it's obvious that s/he has heard you, s/he doesn't respond, you call him/her again to make sure s/he hears you. Would that necessarily make you appear clingy and insecure? Does it look like s/he is craving for your attention and thus you would do best to run a mile from his unwanted visage?

If you want a date, you need to ask for it.

How? Am I to ask any girl I like, who's not even close to me, to dinner?

If the world worked that way, anyone a man fancied would be obligated to sleep with him.

Admittedly, this is a ridiculous analogy that bears no resemblance whatsoever to my problem. Just because I fancied something doesn't mean God is obliged to have it fall to my hands.  I don't feel the need to further explain why. Don't twist things into something completely preposterous.

Anyway, I have already given my own analogy (Person A calling for Person B, B clearly having heard it but not responded, A calling again to confirm that B indeed heard A) so maybe this might help you how I interpreted the circumstances at that particular situation.

To be honest, I'm judging it more by your fanatic analyses on here.

Fanatic? Hardly. Once again it's just basic ethics. I'd be boggled up if that sounds fanatic to you.

You're behaving as a male who wants things, doesn't attempt to get them and then wastes hours of his waking life stressing and wishing rather than being simple and direct.

Doesn't that rather speak against your story about the intelligent lady who got turned off by the man who expressed his undying love for her early in their relationship? Was he not "simple and direct" in proclaiming it, then? I must demand an answer from you, lest I find the concept bizarrely ironic.

I must also stress once more that you may or may have not known that what I wanted was an answer, not a date. By this logic then I was being "simple and direct" in my own way - by following up if she had really read the messages - because I was attempting to get it in the most efficient and straightforward way possible.

Of course. Men are much more drawn by physical beauty and women are much more easily repelled by mental characteristics. Before outin chips in, I didn't say it's a hundred percent rule for all. But it's a very strong trend. in fact, it's spectacularly strong if you are aware of statistics regarding the different ways in which men and women use dating websites. Women can typically get 40-50 messages per day. An ex who I met on a site showed me her account. Others I've dated confirmed those kinds of numbers. No man will ever receive that volume on a dating website. You need to be aware of these issues, because they are absolutely real- regardless of what idealised nonsense puts blinkers on some, regarding statistically incontrovertible and evidence.

Indeed. I am quite aware of this, and am convinced enough to agree that the studies you have presented are largely in correlation to what I observe in reality. However, other factors come into play...I won't enumerate them now since I assume you should know of their existence and significance. But yes, a woman's physical beauty is sure to have men's heads turn.

Some things cannot be faked, but a guy has to become the strong version of himself. That doesn't mean insincerity, it means bettering insecurities.

Frankly, I wasn't really aware...or maybe was not so aware that being a "stronger version" of myself would entail patiently waiting for a reply without being too concerned as to nag the person in question. Well, I overlooked that. Kaboom! Epic fail.

If you go into it with clear interest but a light-hearted attitude (rather than expectation of finding a wife say) they will be greatly more interested than when they sense big expectations. Above all, if you treat something like your life is hanging on it early on, they'll almost always run a mile.

I would agree with this. It makes the suitor in question seem like he has other options open, giving the impression that he is possibly popular and well-liked, and doesn't have to hesitate to forget the girl he asked a question about to start a chat with the next hot attractive lady who actually made the effort to answer his same shallow query.

Well, I wasn't a suitor, and it is unfortunate that my expectations on people's ethical behavior had nonchalantly overshadowed my fragile man card.

It's easy to scoff at facts in favour of ideology from your arm chair, but for guys who need to understand female characteristics in order to be successful with women- getting an objective grasp on the tendencies of the real world is actually rather important. They don't need to be cock-blocked by someome spouting the myth that all women are entirely unique in every way- and thus that there is nothing a guy can do to improve himself, other than wait for a rare special girl who is actually drawn towards needy and insecure behaviour patterns from guys who are not open about their intentions.

It is true that gender will always play a major role on initial human attractiveness, but don't discount the significance of individuality. I know lots of shy friends from high school who interact with women normally, have female friends, although they typically aren't very adept at dating girls. As a college kid I don't know who they are into now, of course. Just because you're a shy type doesn't necessarily mean girls should automatically regard you as a mosquito who buzzes about too scared to land on human skin and suck the blood from within.

Honestly, the only thing constant is going to be the truth. Therefore, you should not hesitate to express the fundamental essence of your emotions, as her perception of you are unlikely going to change, whether or not it is in your favor.

That would mean expressing my undying love to some girl I like but feel too shy to confess to, if I was that insecure. Nyiregyhazi crusades against his perceived "improper" methods (which I might agree to to some extent) that would turn off any female - methods which include hinting at possible signs of insecurity and neediness, which "girls detect like a bloodhound" (Nyiregyhazi 2014). This should mean I can not express the fundamental essence of any emotion, especially if it suggests insecurity and neediness. This means I would, in Nyiregy's own words, be "left on the heap" like the other exploited males should I ever fall into the trap of thinking it's okay and rightful to proclaim whatever I feel to anyone since it won't change their perception of me anyway (this is in direct contrast to Nyiregyhazy's theory, which suggests that it definitely will change women's perception of me from a potentially high status male to a clingy pile of turd). If it doesn't bother, what have you to say to this?

 

As long as you're not someone who has the social intelligence of a potato, sooner or later, a female is going to complement your beliefs and values and become attracted to it, while trying to satisfy others women is going to get you no where. NO WHERE. you're better off going brokeback mountain, my found.  

This is again too much in direct constrast with Nyiregyhazi's approach that I feel an instant urge to paste one of his comments to contradict your idea:

They don't need to be cock-blocked by someome spouting the myth that all women are entirely unique in every way- and thus that there is nothing a guy can do to improve himself, other than wait for a rare special girl who is actually drawn towards needy and insecure behaviour patterns from guys who are not open about their intentions. Such girls are not only extremely rare, but generally riddled with undesirable character traits themselves.

Sounds like the "rare special girl who is actually drawn towards needy and insecure behavior" could substitute for that female who "is going to complement your beliefs and values and become attracted to it", eh?  

You might question the motives behind my comparing your view as opposed to another's, but that is precisely what I find very interesting about this thread - the diversity of opinion, and how the rather "typical" view on finding a partner (outin's?) is challenged by what appears like an "opportunist/Darwinist" like Nyiregyhazi.    

But unlike you I am able to see things from several different perspectives at the same time.

Does this mean you have met, befriended, and possibly courted more women in your life than Nyiregyhazi has? This is what I should take it for. Or does Nyiregyhazi's theory apply to only a limited number of people? What have you to say?

Can, yes. But to recognise a powerful trend does not mean writing off all exceptions. It means using information to your benefit, from an informed rather than naive position.

I agree with this. How then would just simply "being yourself and comfortable with it" (Outin 2014) whilst disregarding any crucial trends garner me the best approach to attracting the opposite sex?  

IMO There's no point in looking at the behavior of animals in the nature to learn about human behavior, because our environment has already become so completely unnatural, eliminating most of the processes from a more natural setting. We are talking about happenings in facebook here...
I do not dismiss all the ideas of sociobiology, but they must be kept in their context, which is usually quite far from the more complex reality.

How should it be "completely unnatural" and "quite far from the more complex reality"? Care to provide some explanation? I find myself particularly curious about this. How far-fetched is human society from animal sociobiology, in that it drastically revolutionizes the mating rituals?

The animals who are shy but eventually mate when left with a single female would quite possibly be left in the dust in a wider world- just as shy humans often tend to be for most of their lives, if not all of their life.

I'm quite skeptical about this. This should mean lots of old people die a bachelor or spinster simply because they're shy by nature - rather absurd. I know a lot of "shy" people who despite this being prevalent in their early life (and sometimes in their adult lives, too), have had successful relationships and/or marriages, sometimes with attractive spouses or partners. I believe there are lots of counterexamples to challenge this particular supposition.

Hopefully the OP got some new perspectives anyway.

Why, of course. There is no doubt.  

[cuberdrift]

Just like with a pianism, there are a range of different right ways, but it's the wrong ways that you need to know how to steer well clear of.

Outin wouldn't want to agree. He doesn't deem it necessary to create an analogy using piano playing:

Just to make it absolutely clear:
Nothing I wrote in this thread is about playing the piano and I do not see it necessary to have such analogies.

You actually forgot one explanation that I gave earlier: 6) She doesn't feel comfortable discussing the study issue at the moment.

Could you (Nyiregyhazi) give a rather more detailed explanation on how attracting the opposite sex resembles pianism?

In that case what you consider hard evidence, I do not.

You do not consider these prevalent trends to be hard evidence? You have admitted to be convinced of the sources Nyiregyhazi already has provided:

It may be a fine study indeed.

Do you not consider them to be "hard evidence"? I think they're pretty reliable to me. Interpreting them - putting them into practice - may prove a little more complicated.

I have been trained to think like a scientist. I do not casually write off things based on preconceptions. I do however not give much value to theories based on random bits of "evidence" or logic that would not withstand scientific scrutiny.

Have you undergone formal training of some sort? How faulty could Nyiregyhazi's empirical data be? I'm yet again bothered by the fact that you later on proclaim to have been convinced by these trends. Why then consider them to be weak bits of "evidence"?

Sorry, but what's your science background? A lot of what you write would never withstand any kind of scientific scrutiny. Anyone can google an abstract of an article, but have you actually read that arcticle or do you understand the research methods or the research setting? Doesn't seem so. You should note that this article was published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics and if you look at the writers, you'll see that they come from faculties of Business Studies, that alone puts the article into a certain context.

You have not yet explained well enough and enumerated how their context should possibly influence their significance on what prevails on human mate selection. How should this "certain context" steer it from otherwise pointing out certain believable trends on human mating behavior?

I'm sorry to say, but with your shortage on explanation, you are giving Nyiregyhazi reasons to question your credibility as a "scientific thinker". I have no choice but to agree with him. If you want to be convincing, please provide us some solid, well-thought of basis.

Now, if it doesn't hurt, why? Why should he note that it's from a business context?

I could write an essay with a long list of sources on this subject, but I simply do not want to waste more time on it, since I doubt it would interest most people on this forum. It would change nothing in your case, since you are not willing to learn.

If it does not entail too much effort on your part, and if you are willing to do so, please do. It doesn't have to be a long essay, but I'm eager for the bases on your part. I want to know where you base your theories and assumptions from. Nyiregyhazi here has been quite enthusiastic in sharing his...

Even though the case of speed dating has very limited relevance to our original subject, I think it shows well the flaws in your method.

The experiment shows well the flaws in his method? How exactly?

And obviously it is necessary for me to repeat myself. I have no problems with the findings of that study. I never said it was flawed and even explicitly pointed out that I do not think so. You just don't want to see how limited the relevancy of that study is to this discussion. Because you are on a mission to preach. Talking to you is often like talking to religious people about god. And you don't seem to mind putting words into the other party's mouth to further your cause. Or maybe you just read so selectively.  

You haven't yet pointed out how limited the relevancy of that study is to the topic at hand. You can't accuse Nyiregyhazi of not comprehending something that didn't even exist. Why would you expect him to be convinced of something you never even talked about? I don't think it's actually correct to have expected him to believe it to be flawed, either.

What are these limitations, anyway?

I really have wasted enough time on you today, so I will not continue this discussion. Feel free to have the last word, I am sure you'll come up with more wild theories about how I think

Sorry, but I don't find myself content with your presumptions. You have so far not presented much plausible evidence and/or reasoning enough to possibly point out how any part of Nyiregyhazi's experiments and/or theories are flawed. I haven't yet seen any conscious effort on your part to meticulously disprove or debunk his claims as he writes paragraph after paragraph restating the relevance of these experiments and how you have failed to properly point out their supposed "flaws" and lack of relevance to the discussion.

Until you provide credible and solid proof that Nyiregyhazi's perceptions on human mating rituals are flawed and/or irrelevant, I will find his posts more plasuible.

You have to admit, though, you just have to admire how a teenage rant thread could bring out the most "scientific" in a lengthy, heated debate between two skeptics.  

[faulty_damper]

Let me ask you a question:

What do women find attractive in you?

[outin]

@cuberdrift

It's a bit difficult to answer all your questions in any clear way, because the quotes from me disappear when I try to answer. I don't have time to tackle that problem now. So excuse me if I ignore many of your questions.

I'll try to explain about the study, even though it must be a very simplified explanation:

An emprical study always has a frame of reference and a study design that will determine how the data can be interpreted and applied. The study itself can be performed excellently, but that doesn't mean that the results present an universal truth or even a general trend, that could then be applied to any group or any situation. It's actually rather rare in many fiels of science, that a scientific study tells us anything definite in any other setting than what was used in the data collection. Theories are constructed from much more than just the empirical data and they often are under constant evolution. Most scientists are very well aware of the limitations of their study and discuss this in their text as well. But when the results are discussed outside the scientific community, all this tends to be left out. People just like to hear simplifications and definite answers even when those are not really there. The original studies (if they are serious) are hardly meant to be used as relationships advice. That's were it goes wrong.

In this specific case, you could for example ask if the people who take part in speed dating do represent the general population very well? And in that context how representative was the sample? What kind of details were observed and how were they classified? How are the concepts that are used defined? All this has a huge impact on what the results actually tell us and how well they can be applied to other environments and other groups of people.

Scientist from different fields design their studies based on their background. For someone familiar with different fields one can already anticipate the frame of reference and concepts used. It doesn't mean that a well designed study is any worse when it is performed by an economist, sociobiologist or a psychologist for example, but they will emphasize different aspects of the phenomena studied and so come to different conclusions that are not necessarily more right or wrong compared to each other. It's just not usually possible to take into account everything in one study setting and the choices made will reflect themselves in the results. That's why what you may at first sight think is hard evidence just isn't. Scientist themselves are usually very well aware of that.

And if you want to know where my assesments come from:
I have a university degree in Sociology (which is very much research orientated around here and focuses on both research methods and philosophy of science) and minors in Statistical Science, Criminology, Psychology, Gender studies, Economics and Educational Science. In addition I  studied natural sciences for a few years. Before leaving the University I took part in many research projects. This has taught me how to read and interpret scientific research quite well. IMO N is doing it in a much too superficial way because he is only looking for proof for something that he strongly feels is true.

But if I ever offer advice in regards to relationships, I do not have any illusion that my science background will make my advice so much more right. Just as N I will also base it on my experience (I have quite a few years behind me) and the fact that I know a lot of women quite well and have spent a lot of time with them in many social settings.

Does this mean you have met, befriended, and possibly courted more women in your life than Nyiregyhazi has?

Since I am female myself and much prefer courting males I must say no, I haven't. But I think I probably have met and befriended more women. And women tend to talk a lot about these things and their feelings with other women. N's theories do not seem to fit the large majority of the women I know. We probably do live in a slightly different culture though. IF his theories really fit that well with the majority of women where he lives, then I guess it would suggest the importance of nurture over nature...

EDIT:
I also have befriended quite a few males (without any other kind of involvement) and actually do discuss relationships matters with some of them. It doesn't seem they think the way N thinks either...But of course neither men or women should be trusted...if they are not consistent with N's theories, they just don't know what they are talking about and are utterly confused about themselves as well...

[nyiregyhazi]

It's a bit difficult to answer all your questions in any clear way, because the quotes from me disappear when I try to answer. I don't have time to tackle that problem now. So excuse me if I ignore many of your questions.

I'll try to explain about the study, even though it must be a very simplified explanation:

An emprical study always has a frame of reference and a study design that will determine how the data can be interpreted and applied. The study itself can be performed excellently, but that doesn't mean that the results present an universal truth or even a general trend, that could then be applied to any group or any situation. It's actually rather rare in many fiels of science, that a scientific study tells us anything definite in any other setting than what was used in the data collection. Theories are constructed from much more than just the empirical data and they often are under constant evolution. Most scientists are very well aware of the limitations of their study and discuss this in their text as well. But when the results are discussed outside the scientific community, all this tends to be left out. People just like to hear simplifications and definite answers even when those are not really there. The original studies (if they are serious) are hardly meant to be used as relationships advice. That's were it goes wrong.

In this specific case, you could for example ask if the people who take part in speed dating do represent the general population very well? And in that context how representative was the sample? What kind of details were observed and how were they classified? How are the concepts that are used defined? All this has a huge impact on what the results actually tell us and how well they can be applied to other environments and other groups of people.

Scientist from different fields design their studies based on their background. For someone familiar with different fields one can already anticipate the frame of reference and concepts used. It doesn't mean that a well designed study is any worse when it is performed by an economist, sociobiologist or a psychologist for example, but they will emphasize different aspects of the phenomena studied.

And if you want to know where my assesments come from:
I have a university degree in Sociology (which is very much research orientated around here and focuses on both research methods and philosophy of science) and minors in Statistical Science, Criminology, Psychology, Gender studies, Economics and Educational Science. In addition I  studied natural sciences for a few years. Before leaving the University I took part in many research projects. This has taught me how to read and interpret scientific research quite well. IMO N is doing it in a much too superficial way because he is only looking for proof for something that he strongly feels is true.

But if I ever offer advice in regards to relationships, I do not have any illusion that my science background will make my advice so much more right. Just as N I will also base it on my experience (I have quite a few years behind me) and the fact that I know a lot of women quite well and have spent a lot of time with them in many social settings.

Since I am female myself and much prefer courting males I must say no, I haven't. But I think I probably have met and befriended more women. And women tend to talk a lot about these things and their feelings with other women. N's theories do not seem to fit the large majority of the women I know. We probably do live in a slightly different culture though. IF his theories really fit that well with the majority of women where he lives, then I guess it would suggest the importance of nurture over nature...

That would all be fine- were it not for the fact that such trends are also seen loud and clear by all males in the real world and supported a whole wealth of studies that go beyond speed-dating. And were it not for the fact that you write off scientifically recorded speed dating results and then seriously feel that your assessment of what friends tell you is meaningful. That's some hypocrisy to write off credited scientific research based on this piece of reasoning and then suggest that the opinions of your friends are where we find real meaningful evidence. If you're going to sneer at economists, then for Christ's sake conclude by showing us more widely representative surveys from scientists you find credible that found no sex-based trends- rather than hearsay from your friends!!!!!!!

My theories do not fit what women SAY.  I don't doubt that one bit. In fact it's exactly why women are so poor at giving advice on what attracts them to men. Speed-dating is a better scenario because the ticks are emotive and genuine attraction based responses, not based on self-delusions about what they think attracts them. Look up the study cited by Malcolm Gladwell in which women detailed what they were were looking for and then selected spectacularly different qualities in males they chose. The problem is that most women don't even know what attracts them- hence why so many find a man who fits their model perfectly and just don't "feel" it for them. Their fantasy is based on a HIGH STATUS male who has these attributes. If they meet one who has them but does not meet their requirements as a high status male, it means nothing. Equally, they often find a high status man who fulfills not one of those requirements yet feel very attracted. Many women are very good as resisting attraction based on conscious will (which can teach many looking for a relationship to choose to avoid philanderers, despite genuine feeling of attraction to them) but the things that women expect to be attracted by often fail miserably- because attraction is too complex to be easily self-analysed. It's logically evident that a man's objective rate of success with a wide range of women is a more meaningful pool of data than a even a wide range of women's mere perceptions of what she (ALONE) merely thinks she would be attracted by. Nothing hinges on the accuracy or honesty of the woman's perception, making it both a smaller pool of statistical data and a more spurious one that cannot be casually trusted. For a man to succeed, he actually has to know how to attract women.

This is why men who have succeeded with women always give better advice (particularly if they started out very poorly and had to learn what actually works better, without having the instinct). Women's feelings are complex and too abstract to be conveyed in objective terms. Men who have to learn how they work to succeed are more valuable, because they have to understand them better than the women in order to evoke attraction. I'm not claiming to be very good at this myself, but having gone from being truly hopeless to being at least partially competent, I've discovered what AWFUL advice women give. It does nothing to affect the things that really determine a man's attractiveness and instead typically involves trying to buy affection (with flowers or dinner) or "being yourself" (ie. being the same as you already were and expecting different results to a string of failures). Either strategy is as close to being truly worthless as anything can be. High status men can afford to be themselves. Low status men need to learn a stronger and more secure self- and yes, we can change for the better without being "fake".

[nyiregyhazi]

You referenced women who probably aren't that smart, women who eventually came to serve as the basis for Nyiregyhazi's theories. How are you sure that they aren't the 'smartest kind'? By stating so you are also saying that women who behave the way Nyiregyhazi generalizes them to behave aren't very intelligent. How then should smarter women behave? On what bases have you made this statement?

Indeed- it's a powerful reminder how much her beliefs are based on idealism and not reality. Women who don't fit her personal perception are judged to be stupid- for merely failing to fit her personal ideal about what is supposed to attract women. How much more need be said, to illustrate how purely idealistic and emotive her belief system is- given that anyone not fitting her model (who is also perceptive enough to know what really attracts them) has their intelligence judged?

I think this may be the reason I find Nyiregy's advice, though somehow reasonable...unnerving. It's a good thing to have a well-rounded background on what attracts women, but I am not fond of the idea of subscribing to the dozens of 'attractive' macho men who do indeed attract lots of women while having to sacrifice my true individuality and genuine nature. I simply won't buy it. I haven't met any girl attractive enough to make me possibly entertain the idea of giving up who I really am in exchange for a more externally sexy facade, if that sexy facade is one I myself don't think is sexy, anyway (in short, I wouldn't even dare play the character that doesn't suit my taste just to court even the hottest lady). While this may not be exactly what Nyiregy thinks a successful male should be, I just want to stress that I'm not buying into the idea of forcing another personality in me. Even for a hot girl.

Really, you couldn't have missed my point more. Trying to change in a specific way to appeal to one girl is about the WORST way to be attractive. This is about learning to be a better person for its own sake and then discovering how much more attractive you now are to women. Honestly, you couldn't have missed the essence of my point any more greatly, if that's your summary of what I'm supposedly saying. You're supposed to become STRONGER in your convictions- not weaker!!!!!!

.

See here. I haven't really, really ever planned to "attract" or court said girl. What I anticipated (the answer from her) was just simply what I was subconsciously expecting, out of previous experiences involving conversations, both in person and through other mediums, with women (including her). The problem I think lies in Nyiregyhazi thinking that I'm a guy who is insecure with himself, is terribly disappointed with his sex life, is getting unreliable advice from people who don't know a cent about what attracts women and thus is bound to fail should he look for someone to date. NO. I'm not looking for a date.

Okay, I'll be honest with you- I see two possibilities. Either you do fancy her and don't even want to admit it to yourself. Or you're really quite deeply insecure about wanting to be liked. Why would a girl you don't even fancy lead you to rant on a piano forum? It's baffling to me. At the moment I have a few dates lined up and I'm messaging various girls. One didn't reply to a text I sent the other day and often doesn't for a few days (I've known her well over a year). So what? I have other options. I'm not going to lie and say it means nothing at all to me, but the thought of being so frustrated as to vent to strangers baffles me.

If it's truly platonic- you do want to get a date at some point, yeah? What's going to happen then if you get this frustrated by a friend not replying? You meet a girl you really like and agree on a date and then she doesn't reply to your text one day? Imagine how crushing that will be!!!!!! If it's only a friend thing here, I'd say you actually need to look inside yourself even more urgently. It's not about pretending that perceived rejection is supposed to be literally nothing to you, but if you're affected so severely by a girl you don't fancy, you really need to learn not to invest so much in a person- for your own wellbeing. This shouldn't be any big deal.

If it is a tribute that they observed themselves so accurately, shouldn't it be a tribute as well that the guy in question observed himself accurately? He has done no sin, even if it turned off the girl in question.

It's not a sin. But the girl's non-sin was in her own interests- ie don't *** a guy you don't fancy. They guy's non-sin screws his chances with a girl he does fancy- so let's not put them side by side. A guy has to look after his own interests. The fact that a miserable failure isn't a sin doesn't mean you want to set yourself up for the same failures, rather than learn from them.

What actual life experiences have you had in order to come up with this conclusion? You say you learned it "the hard way". If you don't mind, could you mention said incident/s?

Well- what do you think? Consistent failures over many years, with very few even short-term successes in between. I'm sure we don't need exact details for the point to be clear.

I never really purposefully made myself aware that I had a "god given right to reciprocation". Nor do I establish myself as a male who should be highly regarded by women and answered when he pokes into their insipid little lives (tempting to think so as it may be, being a "pianist" and all, I never decidedly exude it). It's just basic ethics. Someone calls your name, it's obvious that s/he has heard you, s/he doesn't respond, you call him/her again to make sure s/he hears you. Would that necessarily make you appear clingy and insecure? Does it look like s/he is craving for your attention and thus you would do best to run a mile from his unwanted visage?

Sorry, but I have to stress how much you're missing the point here. No, I wouldn't be bothered- and neither do I myself feel obliged to reply to something so casual as a facebook message within any time limit. Firstly, it's a really poor analogy. Obviously people say hello in person- that's almsot universally accepted etiquette. This is the internet though. I like the messenger precisely because I can reply in my own time. You aren't allowed to set rules or even expectations for other people, regardless of how you behave. If you seriously feel it's the same for the internet, expect to be grossly disappointed many times in the future. You're assuming how YOU use the internet compels everyone else to follow your personal manner of usage. It doesn't work that way. There's no social contract about having to reply to facebook messages in a quick timescale. If you think there is, that's for you alone and compels nobody else to follow your imaginary rules. You have no justified right to feel affronted, sorry- unless you first drew up a social contract with a person about how soon they have to reply, to be your friend.

Admittedly, this is a ridiculous analogy that bears no resemblance whatsoever to my problem. Just because I fancied something doesn't mean God is obliged to have it fall to my hands.  I don't feel the need to further explain why. Don't twist things into something completely preposterous.

What you have suggested IS preposterous- hence the equivalent ridiculousness of the analogy! The idea that merely because you would reply to a message immediately she should too, is no sillier than the idea that if you fancy sex with someone, she ought to feel compelled to have sex with you too. Both situations are ludicrous. Anyone who expects either piece of logic to apply is absolutely in the wrong, sorry. If you want people to adhere to such rules, draw up such an arrangement with them- don't expect it based on fallacious assumptions that everyone follows your personal rules, merely because you do. Different people play by different rules and they are not in the wrong if their way doesn't match yours.

Doesn't that rather speak against your story about the intelligent lady who got turned off by the man who expressed his undying love for her early in their relationship? Was he not "simple and direct" in proclaiming it, then? I must demand an answer from you, lest I find the concept bizarrely ironic.

You're missing the point. The fault is not sincerity. It's that the man has basically said to the woman "You're way out of my league and I want to grab you for myself before you find someone better". If she happens to be deeply in love with him, he'll be fine and it comes across differently. If she was still even slightly still going through the process of screening him (yet he's rapidly stopped screening and decided that he couldn't do any better, within a short time) he's told her that he's punching above his weight and couldn't imagine doing anywhere near as well with anyone else. Goodbye. The same guy taking it slower could have won her over, but a guy who falls in love very quickly screams of being low value as a mate (unless his overall manner speaks very strongly of being high status). It's a little like the old Groucho Marx thing of not wanting to join a club that would take you as a member.

I must also stress once more that you may or may have not known that what I wanted was an answer, not a date. By this logic then I was being "simple and direct" in my own way - by following up if she had really read the messages - because I was attempting to get it in the most efficient and straightforward way possible.

There isn't only one thing to this. Being direct about neediness and having invested so much of your attention in a piffling little facebook message is not a positive. Friends can be repelled by this too, btw.

This should mean I can not express the fundamental essence of any emotion, especially if it suggests insecurity and neediness. This means I would, in Nyiregy's own words, be "left on the heap" like the other exploited males should I ever fall into the trap of thinking it's okay and rightful to proclaim whatever I feel to anyone since it won't change their perception of me anyway (this is in direct contrast to Nyiregyhazy's theory, which suggests that it definitely will change women's perception of me from a potentially high status male to a clingy pile of turd). If it doesn't bother, what have you to say to this?

The point is that you have to ACTUALLY become a stronger and more secure person. Not that you are supposed to fake being one with insincerity. There's no contradiction. Being sincere about being so needy as to invest so much in a mere unanswered message is the killer here- not whether you are sincere about it. Sincerity about being interested (without giving off the impression of being instantly in love) is appealling. Sincerity or insincerity about being wildly obsessed with someone you don't even know that well is off-putting either way. Even if you don't fancy this girl, your obsession about the reply is really going to send off that kind of vibe.

I'm quite skeptical about this. This should mean lots of old people die a bachelor or spinster simply because they're shy by nature - rather absurd. I know a lot of "shy" people who despite this being prevalent in their early life (and sometimes in their adult lives, too), have had successful relationships and/or marriages, sometimes with attractive spouses or partners. I believe there are lots of counterexamples to challenge this particular supposition.

They do often die alone. It's not unusual at all. Many others settle for the first person who comes along and takes an interest and often lead either long but very unhappy or short-lived marriages- because they took what they could and not what they wanted. Don't think that life is a fairytale. People who are single almost permanently rarely run into a woman who is extremely beautiful and emotionally desirable and then end up in a fairytale romance. More likely, after years of unhappiness and frustration, they grab at the first thing that looks even partially appealling (without any of the experience needed to realise that it might not be so pleasant or that they could do a lot better). Along the way they may having fleeting encounters with lovely people they could actually have got on well with, but lack the experience to be a remotely appealling prospect themself and thus crash and burn.

[outin]

You referenced women who probably aren't that smart, women who eventually came to serve as the basis for Nyiregyhazi's theories. How are you sure that they aren't the 'smartest kind'? By stating so you are also saying that women who behave the way Nyiregyhazi generalizes them to behave aren't very intelligent. How then should smarter women behave? On what bases have you made this statement?

In my experience usually neither men nor women need to revert to practiced game playing in social situations if they have social intelligence. So the comment above was more hypothetical, not meant as a statement that people are generally stupid. That would be a matter of a completely new discussion...

When people are used to thinking in a rational way most of the time, there's usually a good balance between their instincts (biology) and rationality in their actual behavior. Of course everyone behaves in a seemingly irrational way every now and then, but in general people are not quite as much slaves to traits developed by evolution as N
makes it seem. This can be seen from countless studies. While the data usually shows some correlation between biology and behavior, there are always contradictive results as well. And there were contradictive results in the study N linked as well, clearly stated by the scientist himself. As is expected since human behavior is too complex to be understood from the results of a couple of simple empirical studies, no matter how well done.

In fact many developments of evolution can be overturned in just a few generations when natural selection is not allowed to work freely. We see this in animal breeding  very well. The conditions in which humans reproduce today are very far from natural selection.

But I have to stress: If and when N is talking about developing and showing more of one's more pleasing traits and trying not to show the less pleasing ones, that is not what I refer to when I talk about game playing. That's just personal growth or attempting to give a favorable first impression, which I don't see as something negative at all. So when I talk about being oneself in social situations, I don't mean one should not try to control one's behavior at all. It's all about balance. Some people find it earlier, some later and unfortunately some never do...

[cuberdrift]

Let me ask you a question:

What do women find attractive in you?

I cannot be very certain, but I do possess a rather dry sense of humor, I'm quite easygoing, and have a fondness for more 'intellectual' topics than a lot of my peers, and of course my piano. I write these down based also on how my own male friends regard me.

May I ask why you asked that?

In this specific case, you could for example ask if the people who take part in speed dating do represent the general population very well? And in that context how representative was the sample? What kind of details were observed and how were they classified? How are the concepts that are used defined? All this has a huge impact on what the results actually tell us and how well they can be applied to other environments and other groups of people.

Indeed, various factors may make or break how effective N's theory would be. I guess he has to answer for these details. I also feel the need to stress that we three may be entire continents apart, although N would probably restate how it's a "universal" trend...

...does this mean that even in conservative, highly patriarchal India or some Middle-Eastern countries, where romance is a no-no, these trends are widely prevalent? Not that the men there actually have a chance to even ask for a date though, lol (I have never visited these countries so excuse me if I mistook their culture in any way).

Scientist from different fields design their studies based on their background. For someone familiar with different fields one can already anticipate the frame of reference and concepts used. It doesn't mean that a well designed study is any worse when it is performed by an economist, sociobiologist or a psychologist for example, but they will emphasize different aspects of the phenomena studied and so come to different conclusions that are not necessarily more right or wrong compared to each other. It's just not usually possible to take into account everything in one study setting and the choices made will reflect themselves in the results. That's why what you may at first sight think is hard evidence just isn't. Scientist themselves are usually very well aware of that.

How then should a Business perspective on the results of a Speed Dating experiment differ from that of, say, a more "Psychological" interpretation of them? And how should this affect judgement on dating in general? You told Nyiregy that the study he presented took on a Business approach, placing in a different context. You seemed to imply that it was not as useful as if it had not been so. Why?

IMO N is doing it in a much too superficial way because he is only looking for proof for something that he strongly feels is true.

May be true, although I can't find myself disagreeing with his suggestion of the possibility of becoming a 'stronger male' - although I'm not very certain ALL women do run a mile from some sort of follow-up question either. The point is I cannot ever be certain how she thought.

But I think I probably have met and befriended more women. And women tend to talk a lot about these things and their feelings with other women. N's theories do not seem to fit the large majority of the women I know.

Isn't that exactly what Nyiregyhazi thinks is completely useless - female advice? If you think women's opinions are valuable too, how so? I'm not saying he's right, but I want to clarify how you would differ from his view that women never know what they're talking about.

[cuberdrift]

That would all be fine- were it not for the fact that such trends are also seen loud and clear by all males in the real world and supported a whole wealth of studies that go beyond speed-dating.

Wealth of studies? From where? As far as I've seen you have posted only two sources so far.

And were it not for the fact that you write off scientifically recorded speed dating results and then seriously feel that your assessment of what friends tell you is meaningful. That's some hypocrisy to write off credited scientific research based on this piece of reasoning and then suggest that the opinions of your friends are where we find real meaningful evidence.

You may or may not know that the fact that outin's friends' opinions differ from the generally prevalent trends that you claim to be almost universal and perpetual in all human beings may question their validity outright. For instance, if you say nearly all shy men die without ever getting laid with a gorgeous woman, yet I know A LOT of shy men who DO, may challenge this widely-occurring phenomenon. My parents are living proof.

If you're going to sneer at economists, then for Christ's sake conclude by showing us more widely representative surveys from scientists you find credible that found no sex-based trends- rather than hearsay from your friends!!!!!!!

I must indeed second this. Outin hasn't yet said why Economists' advice can't be taken too seriously.

Look up the study cited by Malcolm Gladwell in which women detailed what they were were looking for and then selected spectacularly different qualities in males they chose. The problem is that most women don't even know what attracts them- hence why so many find a man who fits their model perfectly and just don't "feel" it for them. Their fantasy is based on a HIGH STATUS male who has these attributes. If they meet one who has them but does not meet their requirements as a high status male, it means nothing.

You're saying that the kind of man women often profess to want isn't exactly the kind of man they really are attracted to, is it not?

Equally, they often find a high status man who fulfills not one of those requirements yet feel very attracted. Many women are very good as resisting attraction based on conscious will (which can teach many looking for a relationship to choose to avoid philanderers, despite genuine feeling of attraction to them) but the things that women expect to be attracted by often fail miserably- because attraction is too complex to be easily self-analysed. It's logically evident that a man's objective rate of success with a wide range of women is a more meaningful pool of data than a even a wide range of women's mere perceptions of what she (ALONE) merely thinks she would be attracted by. Nothing hinges on the accuracy or honesty of the woman's perception, making it both a smaller pool of statistical data and a more spurious one that cannot be casually trusted. For a man to succeed, he actually has to know how to attract women.

What qualities in a man do exactly most women, by your knowledge, claim to be attracted to? As opposed to the more determinant qualities that they are REALLY attracted to (at least going by your theories), such as wealth, self-confidence, being direct, nonchalance etc...

[cuberdrift]

This is why men who have succeeded with women always give better advice (particularly if they started out very poorly and had to learn what actually works better, without having the instinct). Women's feelings are complex and too abstract to be conveyed in objective terms. Men who have to learn how they work to succeed are more valuable, because they have to understand them better than the women in order to evoke attraction.

Allow me to take on a rather more impulsive approach towards this discussion so you may hopefully get an accurate view on how I earnestly view these things.

Frankly, I hate the idea of having to adjust to women's expectations. Let them think what they think. I am my own man and I judge by my own standards. I have no intention to compromise what I think is right for what they think is attractive. Now it hadn't really occurred to me that sending a follow-up message would be so disastrous until you told me - until then I went by the maxim stated in the above paragraph. I went by my whims. Too bad it turns out wrong.

I am NOT against strengthening myself for the better - no, I wholeheartedly agree with you on that - it's just the way you describe women as people who run off males who make small mistakes as if they were monsters. It turns me off real bad. Instead of giving me a clear picture it just tends to give me the impression that women are these dangerous lion or bear-like creatures who could cause major damage to anyone who would dare tame them - but of course, they are people who can think and reason - rendering them vile and ruthless.

Your continuous depictions of these women as unreachable beings who would do anything to turn down a male who is genuinely interested in them disgust me. Are all men expected to cater to their subconscious desires or be destroyed? Do they exert no sense of reason or understanding whatsoever that failing to hit the Bulls-Eye would mean Game Over for us?

I guess this is why I find your theories unnerving. Maybe because I've been used to making friends for years based on just a match in chemistry. While I do profess that my recent increase in self-confidence have helped me open up more connections, ultimately my close circle still consists of who I really am genuinely attracted to, personality-wise. I don't have any close female friends, though. The fact that you seem to persist on forcing males to understand the complexities of woman behavior just to save themselves from being "left in the heap" adds to my inner disdain. It had never occurred to me that a woman couldn't just write off these shortcomings coming from a male, and that such shortcomings would bring about his ultimate downfall, until you repeatedly said so.

I sort of went by the assumption that we live in a happy world where everyone could trust each other without the influence of some dark demons preying on the subconscious mind dictating who should be shunned and who should not, until you told me so.

Now, before I rage further, let me tell you once more that I am very much for simply increasing self-confidence - in the process removing any "insecurities" that may hinder potential attractiveness - which I wholeheartedly agree with. Again it's just the way you continuously describe women as indifferent, choosy beings who have no regard for whoever they aren't turned on.

It does nothing to affect the things that really determine a man's attractiveness and instead typically involves trying to buy affection (with flowers or dinner) or "being yourself" (ie. being the same as you already were and expecting different results to a string of failures). Either strategy is as close to being truly worthless as anything can be. High status men can afford to be themselves. Low status men need to learn a stronger and more secure self- and yes, we can change for the better without being "fake".

Ahh. I see. Poor me, I have been deceived by ignorant bastards all my life into thinking being a "nice gentleman" would pass me off as attractive and/or acceptable in the books of the most gorgeous women. No, no, I have to be a scientific thinker - disregard what the women say - and bargain with the devil who truly knows the dark workings behind a woman's mind. God never offered me an explanation for this, he doesn't give me an accurate view of what women want.

Shame on those wanted girls who keep telling us all we have to do is to be polite to them and be nice...and kind...and caring...all sorts of fraudulent balderdash...so we could get their attention. No, it is wealth and popularity - as well as absence of any trace of insecurity or attachment - that should bring them to our clutches. It's all been a great lie and they never really revealed to us their true nature and I am one unfortunate enough to fall into the pit with countless other foolish, deluded gentlemen who have been crushed by false hopes and deceived by these vile women.

One doesn't have to be "fake" to gain their favor - nor should one be completely earnest, too.

Indeed- it's a powerful reminder how much her beliefs are based on idealism and not reality. Women who don't fit her personal perception are judged to be stupid- for merely failing to fit her personal ideal about what is supposed to attract women. How much more need be said, to illustrate how purely idealistic and emotive her belief system is- given that anyone not fitting her model (who is also perceptive enough to know what really attracts them) has their intelligence judged?

"Smartest" in her book may have been a bit different from yours. I think you're exaggerating a bit by thinking that she judges them as outright stupid - which isn't true anyways - she merely said they were "not so intelligent".

"Smartest" may have certain connotations. I might think Video game geeks are often "smarter" than basketball jocks, but I never said it's their fault they're more stupid. Certain people of higher intelligence typically develop an interest in more intellectual fields, as well as be able to reason more. Same goes for women, although I cannot be entirely certain - intelligent ones might be more forgiving of shy males, while the more close-minded would probably shun them off at the earliest opportunity in favor of a more impressive male.

This isn't to say that whatever chemical there exists in women that determines what they are attracted to isn't as prevalent in intelligent females, but maybe they are more accepting of various personality types. Those who are more narrow minded would probably thus be less tolerant of the insecure.

Either way insecurity is to be fought against if one wants to succeed socially whether with the opposite sex or their own, and this is something I fortunately have had some success with overcoming. But I do not find myself tolerant of the kind of girl who has no patience for insipid mistakes and who tends to fall easily for those who appear popular and well-liked when in reality aren't really serious with any relationship they have, since you claim that it is popularity, wealth, and self-confidence alone that determines attractiveness.

I want to state that I have never, ever really believed in speed-dating, even though I have experienced it many times. It's because it's a superficial first encounter. It may help the girl decide who's most attractive, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's more to social relationships than who looks best.

At least, from my...rather naive...opinion...

Really, you couldn't have missed my point more. Trying to change in a specific way to appeal to one girl is about the WORST way to be attractive. This is about learning to be a better person for its own sake and then discovering how much more attractive you now are to women. Honestly, you couldn't have missed the essence of my point any more greatly, if that's your summary of what I'm supposedly saying. You're supposed to become STRONGER in your convictions- not weaker!!!!!!

You may also have missed my point. I never said you claimed that "forcing myself to be who the girl likes" is the idea you were trying to enforce. I just felt the need to emphasize that that was exactly what I would never buy into, and you confirm it now - that it is about the "WORST way to be attractive".

I never had any weak convictions - and ironically, it was my strong conviction that led me to send that follow-up comment. I'm quite sure of who I am, I just lack experience dealing with women digitally and had no idea it was such a bad thing. I hope you understand that.

Like I said, I am utterly in agreement with having an established sense of self - and learning to be stronger in convictions - yet I still feel hatred for your preconceived notions about attractive women forgetting about human dignity.

Okay, I'll be honest with you- I see two possibilities. Either you do fancy her and don't even want to admit it to yourself. Or you're really quite deeply insecure about wanting to be liked. Why would a girl you don't even fancy lead you to rant on a piano forum? It's baffling to me. At the moment I have a few dates lined up and I'm messaging various girls. One didn't reply to a text I sent the other day and often doesn't for a few days (I've known her well over a year). So what? I have other options. I'm not going to lie and say it means nothing at all to me, but the thought of being so frustrated as to vent to strangers baffles me.

Both may be true to certain extents - I do fancy her in that she is physically attractive, and rather approachable - I had no trouble admitting that, but I don't think of such things as asking women out to a date. It's bargaining for too much and I have other concerns to attend to other than spending my time to woo even an attractive girl. She's not my crush, even if I find her physically appealing. On the other hand, I'm not particularly afraid to admit that I do have developed a certain level insecurity - I have long been part of this school you where kids would all want to be "popular", "cool", "accepted"...usual high school hocus pocus - and owing in large part to a...particularly, err, troubling experience from another girl in the past.   Fortunately enough, I am positive about resetting these unwanted behaviors, and have since been a little bit more carefree and optimistic.

As to my venting on a Piano forum, there's nothing particularly "baffling" about it if you knew my perspective. I have no reservations on an online community like this, filled with deeply scientific and/or philosophical individuals like you   . Plus the fact that I'm inexperienced with these ordeals, of course I'm naturally touchy about it.

And you may or may not have read that I'm now having fun reading from various perspectives that, painful they may be, enlighten my view on these things I'm quite new to. I'm wholly entertained that it has provoked such a lengthy, useful debate and that was what I half expected in the first place .

If it's truly platonic- you do want to get a date at some point, yeah? What's going to happen then if you get this frustrated by a friend not replying? You meet a girl you really like and agree on a date and then she doesn't reply to your text one day? Imagine how crushing that will be!!!!!!

Of course I do want to get a date sometime in the future. I understand your point here...then again I would never consider using Facebook as a means of asking for a date. There's a lot of room for anything to end up deeply upsetting if I were to use a medium of communication that showed you neither the person's face nor his/her voice.

If it's only a friend thing here, I'd say you actually need to look inside yourself even more urgently. It's not about pretending that perceived rejection is supposed to be literally nothing to you, but if you're affected so severely by a girl you don't fancy, you really need to learn not to invest so much in a person- for your own wellbeing. This shouldn't be any big deal.

Agreed...but I still don't regret posting this in the Piano forum and causing such a vast and diverse discussion.  

Well- what do you think? Consistent failures over many years, with very few even short-term successes in between. I'm sure we don't need exact details for the point to be clear.

Alright then.

Sorry, but I have to stress how much you're missing the point here. No, I wouldn't be bothered- and neither do I myself feel obliged to reply to something so casual as a facebook message within any time limit.

Are you aware of the workings behind Facebook's messaging system? You may or may not be aware already of that "Seen" feature I'm particularly concerned about. It's been designed to tell you if the receiver has read it or not. Knowing that the reader has read it already but hasn't answered in a span of several days alarms me.

Firstly, it's a really poor analogy. Obviously people say hello in person- that's almsot universally accepted etiquette.

Perhaps I mistook Facebook for reality then. The point is the two concepts are somewhat similar - Facebook has this way of telling you the person saw it, so just naturally one would typically assume the person HAS indeed read it. Although as dima said earlier, there could be some reason that hindered her from really reading it. I won't discount that.

I like the messenger precisely because I can reply in my own time. You aren't allowed to set rules or even expectations for other people, regardless of how you behave. If you seriously feel it's the same for the internet, expect to be grossly disappointed many times in the future. You're assuming how YOU use the internet compels everyone else to follow your personal manner of usage. It doesn't work that way.

This probably fits my problem more accurately. Whilst stating that I shouldn't have replied in that "follow-up" manner, and whilst you have endured lengthy explanations on what attracts and repels women, I think it would've been more practical to include the context behind it -  the internet.

Yeah, sure, I could be disappointed a lot of times...it's just that I have a tendency to actually BELIEVE that "Seen" feature, okay? Maybe I was wrong to do so.

I never really liked Facebook as a means of socialization - although it's the only means I can connect with certain people. It's one of the most impersonal mediums of socialization. I actually much prefer the phone, where you would actually hear the person's voice and intonation. There was a time when I was new to Facebook, when I found it oddly creepy to see that it tells you that the other person was "typing" already ("X is typing...") and that sort of thing.

You have no justified right to feel affronted, sorry- unless you first drew up a social contract with a person about how soon they have to reply, to be your friend.

Quite right, although the girl in question doesn't necessarily have to assume that I DID feel affronted, either. I may have felt affronted inside but I never really exuded it towards her.

Then again I already told you before the "If-I-were-her" thing in which I would reply if I saw it.

What you have suggested IS preposterous- hence the equivalent ridiculousness of the analogy! The idea that merely because you would reply to a message immediately she should too, is no sillier than the idea that if you fancy sex with someone, she ought to feel compelled to have sex with you too.

It may not be a very good analogy, but it's not outright preposterous. Think about it - in real life where you call for a person's name it's pretty obvious when the person hears it, right? Then it should be pretty obvious as well that the person HAS read your message owing to Facebook's "Seen" system telling you whether or not the person OPENED that message. It works in a similar (but not completely so) manner.

And NO, it is NOT as preposterous as expecting a person you like have sex with you. Are you serious?! How should you expect someone you like, but who probably doesn't even know you, like you back to the point of sex?! Absurd. If I believed in such fallacies I might think rape is alright, which is utter bollocks.

The point is you're not to the slightest degree showing you have any interest or probably even talked to the person you fancy whatsoever. It's different from making an effort to talk to the person and thus anticipating some sort of answer in return. I hope you understand this?  

Don't expect it based on fallacious assumptions that everyone follows your personal rules, merely because you do. Different people play by different rules and they are not in the wrong if their way doesn't match yours.

I do have a right to feel slighted by what I deem rude, even if I shouldn't expect everyone to play by my rules. Don't confuse the two. It's completely absurd to assume that a friend who calls for another and doesn't get called back in return shouldn't feel slighted just because he shouldn't expect everyone to play by his own personal rules.

You're missing the point. The fault is not sincerity. It's that the man has basically said to the woman "You're way out of my league and I want to grab you for myself before you find someone better". If she happens to be deeply in love with him, he'll be fine and it comes across differently. If she was still even slightly still going through the process of screening him (yet he's rapidly stopped screening and decided that he couldn't do any better, within a short time) he's told her that he's punching above his weight and couldn't imagine doing anywhere near as well with anyone else. Goodbye. The same guy taking it slower could have won her over, but a guy who falls in love very quickly screams of being low value as a mate (unless his overall manner speaks very strongly of being high status). It's a little like the old Groucho Marx thing of not wanting to join a club that would take you as a member.

I commented on that story because it seemed to have some contradictions with how a high status male would ask straight for what he wanted. You mentioned previously:

If you want a date, you need to ask for it.

How does that make it any different from declaring love at the earliest opportune moment? You claim that a high status male would be simple and direct and ask for a date he really fancied someone. I don't see how that would work along different lines from him declaring his love at their first date, which also is simple and direct.

There isn't only one thing to this. Being direct about neediness and having invested so much of your attention in a piffling little facebook message is not a positive. Friends can be repelled by this too, btw.

No, friends do not get repelled by this. At least in my experiences. I have some friends who have no qualms about typing half a dozen follow-ups if I haven't answered their question yet even if they had no evidence I saw them. And I'm not repelled in the slightest sense of the word. I even appreciate their genuine interest in whatever they're asking about.

I would be annoyed, of course, if such habits were taken to the extreme.

The point is that you have to ACTUALLY become a stronger and more secure person. Not that you are supposed to fake being one with insincerity. There's no contradiction. Being sincere about being so needy as to invest so much in a mere unanswered message is the killer here- not whether you are sincere about it. Sincerity about being interested (without giving off the impression of being instantly in love) is appealling. Sincerity or insincerity about being wildly obsessed with someone you don't even know that well is off-putting either way. Even if you don't fancy this girl, your obsession about the reply is really going to send off that kind of vibe.

I never claimed you wanted me to be insincere and fake. I just wanted to stress the fact that that was exactly what I would always avoid. However, you don't suggest being completely earnest either. Your theory lies somewhere in between being completely manipulative and being completely honest.

They do often die alone. It's not unusual at all. Many others settle for the first person who comes along and takes an interest and often lead either long but very unhappy or short-lived marriages- because they took what they could and not what they wanted. Don't think that life is a fairytale. People who are single almost permanently rarely run into a woman who is extremely beautiful and emotionally desirable and then end up in a fairytale romance. More likely, after years of unhappiness and frustration, they grab at the first thing that looks even partially appealling (without any of the experience needed to realise that it might not be so pleasant or that they could do a lot better). Along the way they may having fleeting encounters with lovely people they could actually have got on well with, but lack the experience to be a remotely appealling prospect themself and thus crash and burn.

It is not unusual, but it isn't usual, either. As I said my own parents are living proof - as well as a lot of relatives and some friends. You can't assume your theory is perfect once someone else has seen the contrary in real life.

Don't assume too much. You act as if you knew everything about couples. It's preposterous to suppose that existing counterexamples can't exist just because your theory says so. Do these couples I refer to prove fairy tales exist, then?

How old are you, anyway? These comments strike me as condescending. If you DO have lots of experience regarding how shy people's lives were observably wrecked apart, I'll respect these notions. But for me, I know too many counterexamples to believe that it is inevitable for a shy person never to be stable with anyone attractive.

And if name drops don't hurt - Glenn Gould? Debussy? Chopin? Bach? And though Beethoven himself never married, he did have a plural number of high-status women going after him...

...not that I have done extensive research about their personalities anyway, but they are generally regarded as shy and/or unusual people. You tell me how they never got along well with any attractive woman.

Thanks for the all info though.  

EDIT: Sorry for the triple post - the site keeps telling me my posts exceed 25,000 characters. 

[thalbergmad]

EDIT: Sorry for the triple post - the site keeps telling me my posts exceed 25,000 characters. 

Only Hinty has ever managed that.

Thal

[dima_76557]

If you think women's opinions are valuable too, how so? I'm not saying he's right, but I want to clarify how you would differ from his view that women never know what they're talking about.

I trust outin has both the wisdom and the patience to answer that question with a smile, but here's my advice: if you are on a date, don't ask that kind of questions to a girl/woman. Your bold mating call may suddenly turn into a helpless squeak after she kicks you into your weakest spot...

[nyiregyhazi]

In my experience usually neither men nor women need to revert to practiced game playing in social situations if they have social intelligence. So the comment above was more hypothetical, not meant as a statement that people are generally stupid. That would be a matter of a completely new discussion...

When people are used to thinking in a rational way most of the time, there's usually a good balance between their instincts (biology) and rationality in their actual behavior. Of course everyone behaves in a seemingly irrational way every now and then, but in general people are not quite as much slaves to traits developed by evolution as N
makes it seem.

Look up such works as Mlodinov's (who is a scientist who worked with no less than Steven Hawking) "subliminal". It's amazing how prevalent unconscious issues are in controlling us. It's not about dating but it's a real eye-opener regarding the delusion that everyone is quite thoroughly unique and immune to human trends. Diversity is a real thing, but the idea that everyone is altogether unique is not backed up by research.

To say IF you have social intelligence is like saying that a pianist doesn't need to worry about technique IF they have a very fine one.  Those who don't have to learn first- otherwise the pieces which are "right for them" aren't going to constistute a terribly wide or enticing choice. There's no reason to think that destiny is supposed to limit you to whatever your current manner enables. Also, social intelligence and ability to actually pull women are not the same. Many successful guys have traditionally "poor" intelligence in formal social situations. Whereas extremely well-mannered people who are actually very good at talking to women don't necessarily have it what it takes to be seen as more than a friend.

[nyiregyhazi]

I am NOT against strengthening myself for the better - no, I wholeheartedly agree with you on that - it's just the way you describe women as people who run off males who make small mistakes as if they were monsters. It turns me off real bad. Instead of giving me a clear picture it just tends to give me the impression that women are these dangerous lion or bear-like creatures who could cause major damage to anyone who would dare tame them - but of course, they are people who can think and reason - rendering them vile and ruthless.

Sorry, but the world is what it is. What's worse- expecting the world to fit a delusion or knowing a little about how it really works.

Your continuous depictions of these women as unreachable beings who would do anything to turn down a male who is genuinely interested in them disgust me.

How on earth would attractive women get through a day if they didn't- never mind find someone they feel is the pick of the crop? Be rational, not emotional. Note that I placed no judgement. It's just a case of being savvy about how things work.

Shame on those wanted girls who keep telling us all we have to do is to be polite to them and be nice...and kind...and caring...all sorts of fraudulent balderdash...so we could get their attention. No, it is wealth and popularity - as well as absence of any trace of insecurity or attachment - that should bring them to our clutches. It's all been a great lie and they never really revealed to us their true nature and I am one unfortunate enough to fall into the pit with countless other foolish, deluded gentlemen who have been crushed by false hopes and deceived by these vile women.

Don't start judging. Just be aware of how the world works.

"Smartest" in her book may have been a bit different from yours. I think you're exaggerating a bit by thinking that she judges them as outright stupid - which isn't true anyways - she merely said they were "not so intelligent".

They were among the most intelligent and interesting women I have dated. Intelligence was absolutely not in question. They were simply self-aware of what would logically be judged as "irrational" issues behind attraction. But attraction is not rational, so that was a testament to their intelligence that they could see so- rather than state the same old cobblers.

intelligent ones might be more forgiving of shy males, while the more close-minded would probably shun them off at the earliest opportunity in favor of a more impressive male.

If anything, correlations would tend be related to beauty. Beautiful women rarely go for shy men- unless they have truly outstanding qualities in other areas.

since you claim that it is popularity, wealth, and self-confidence alone that determines attractiveness.

I never defined such a narrow range- nor even brought the issue of wealth to the table at all.

I want to state that I have never, ever really believed in speed-dating, even though I have experienced it many times. It's because it's a superficial first encounter. It may help the girl decide who's most attractive, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's more to social relationships than who looks best.

Of course. But the issue of exclusion is what is interesting. Arguably women are more shallow in such situations. Women exclude outright very easily in them, based on relatively little knowledge of the  person. Whereas men are more open to getting to know the person a little further, before ruling them out complete.

As to my venting on a Piano forum, there's nothing particularly "baffling" about it if you knew my perspective. I have no reservations on an online community like this, filled with deeply scientific and/or philosophical individuals like you   . Plus the fact that I'm inexperienced with these ordeals, of course I'm naturally touchy about it.

It certainly has been interesting. But be aware that someone who invests so much in a reply to a single message (rather than who moves straight on with something that is more important to him) as to feel enough inner frustration to vent on a piano forum falls squarely into the demographic of what will be perceived as a "needy" man.

Of course I do want to get a date sometime in the future. I understand your point here...then again I would never consider using Facebook as a means of asking for a date. There's a lot of room for anything to end up deeply upsetting if I were to use a medium of communication that showed you neither the person's face nor his/her voice.

? This wasn't about facebook. It was about the fact that if you experience so much frustration in a friend not replying to one message for a mere day, you'll probably go through living hell if you start dating. You need to work on that urgently, for your own sake. You're too invested and need to learn to let go and be more concerned by a range of pursuits.

It may not be a very good analogy, but it's not outright preposterous. Think about it - in real life where you call for a person's name it's pretty obvious when the person hears it, right? Then it should be pretty obvious as well that the person HAS read your message owing to Facebook's "Seen" system telling you whether or not the person OPENED that message. It works in a similar (but not completely so) manner.

It's not real life. Nobody laid out such rules. You might as well argue that it's rude not to reply to an email within thirty minutes. There are no universal social norms here.

And NO, it is NOT as preposterous as expecting a person you like have sex with you. Are you serious?! How should you expect someone you like, but who probably doesn't even know you, like you back to the point of sex?! Absurd. If I believed in such fallacies I might think rape is alright, which is utter bollocks.

Nobody said rape. The comparison lies in how ludicrous it is to think that merely because you would behave in a way, the other person is expected to reciprocate. That is totally ludicrous. That you would reply immediately doesn't mean the other person should- just as the fact that you would sleep with someone does not mean that they will therefore want to sleep with you. Neither situation makes any rational sense, as a valid expectation from someone. "Treat others as you want to be treated" is fine, but when you reverse it to "expect others to treat you as you would treat them" you are expecting everyone in the world to be a mindreader who is obligated to refashion themself merely to suit how you want them to be. The first is feasible because you know your own mind and have a right to tell yourself how to behave. The second isn't because other people DON'T- and because you have literally no right to expect them echo your own behaviour patterns anyway!!!

I do have a right to feel slighted by what I deem rude, even if I shouldn't expect everyone to play by my rules. Don't confuse the two. It's completely absurd to assume that a friend who calls for another and doesn't get called back in return shouldn't feel slighted just because he shouldn't expect everyone to play by his own personal rules.

Sorry, you don't. Not in the slightest. It's a Facebook message. You keep coming back to the seen issue, which is beside the point. It doesn't matter. Did you draw up and agreement with her that you must both reply to messages within a 24 hour deadline? If not, it isn't rude. She probably lied about supposedly not having seen it after feeling pushed into a corner by you complaining. If someone behaved that way towards me, I'd simply point out that I indeed read it but that I have more important things in my life than being pressured into answering questions online within a deadline. It is not "rude" for people to fail to have divined your personal rules for the internet and instead abided by their own. If people who don't live by the 24 hour rule don't work for you, then drop them as friends. But don't presume that your way of using the messenger consistutes rules of social ettiquette. It absolutely does not. You have zero right to that which has not been agreed upon. The fact that you place so much importance on this shows that you need to learn to accept that you can't control other people's behaviours (to try to force them to match your subjective idea of social graces) and you need to learn to stop investing so much in other people's behaviours. You simply don't have a right to expect people to behave as you happen to, on this issue. When you start dating, you'll discover that it's not unusual at all for attractive women to leave it a day or more before replying to a text message, yet still be genuinely interested in meeting up for dates. They just don't tend to invest their all at once (except for needy and clingy women). You need to have an urgent rethink if you want to be able to cope with dating somewhere down than the line.

How does that make it any different from declaring love at the earliest opportune moment? You claim that a high status male would be simple and direct and ask for a date he really fancied someone. I don't see how that would work along different lines from him declaring his love at their first date, which also is simple and direct.

Oh dear...

You're not getting it. There's virtually no such thing as a high status male who falls "in love" on a first date. High status males screen females progressively for suitability just as females screen males. That's not love, on a first date. That's saying "You're way out of my league and I'll never get another chance to meet someone like you, so I'm going to do everything to grab you before I lose my one chance". Such a transparent display of ultra-low status behaviour is not remotely attractive.

No, friends do not get repelled by this. At least in my experiences. I have some friends who have no qualms about typing half a dozen follow-ups if I haven't answered their question yet even if they had no evidence I saw them. And I'm not repelled in the slightest sense of the word. I even appreciate their genuine interest in whatever they're asking about.

That may be fine if you're very close. You said she was a fairly casual acquaintance. You don't start deeper friendships that way- ESPECIALLY notwith women. Remember that you also said you find her physically attractive. Women can see that in a man's eyes usually. So you'll probably look like a frustrated new stalker to her. Also, note that again you are stressing how YOU behave. IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!!!!!!!!!! :-) Other people are not you and do not have to be- regardless of whether some of your friends happen to operate in a way that is similar to you!!!! Stop kidding yourself that by treating people as you want to be treated, they are obliged to treat you that way too. Unless such things are agreed by society as a whole (as in your calling out in person example) or agreed by you and that person, there is no basis to expect reciprocation and you have no right to demand it. You need to listen to that podcast about "nice" guys. You won't get far in life by assuming that everyone will automatically copy your behaviour patterns and give things back to you- especially if you get this frustrated when life doesn't actually work that way at all.

Don't assume too much. You act as if you knew everything about couples. It's preposterous to suppose that existing counterexamples can't exist just because your theory says so. Do these couples I refer to prove fairy tales exist, then?

The same logic would say don't wear a seatbelt in a car, because sometimes people survive without them. You can leave it to "fate" to decide how you fare, or you can give yourself the best chances possible.

But for me, I know too many counterexamples to believe that it is inevitable for a shy person never to be stable with anyone attractive.

Inevitable is your word, not mine. I merely believe in playing on good odds, not hoping for fate to leap in if I'm playing on very poor odds (and getting nothing in return). Expecting fate to transport someone special to you (without doing anything to pick up the skills to be an attractive prospect to women) is a fools game.

[thalbergmad]

Wimmin is fick

[outin]

How then should a Business perspective on the results of a Speed Dating experiment differ from that of, say, a more "Psychological" interpretation of them? And how should this affect judgement on dating in general? You told Nyiregy that the study he presented took on a Business approach, placing in a different context. You seemed to imply that it was not as useful as if it had not been so. Why?

I'm afraid I do not really have time to write a more thorough explanation. It would require extensive background explanations and become a textbook

If you want to understand more get some books that cover scientific methodology and philosophy. They make interesting reading, I promise!

But may I stress again: Without reading the whole research report and understanding the methods and theoretical background it's simply impossible to evaluate whether the results are applicable in your situation or in general in any different circumstances.

There are some things to consider with any study:

Reliability: It basically means whether the study is well done and the results are consistent in that research setting. I have not questioned this at all.

Validity: Does it measure what it is supposed to measure? Are the questions asked the right ones? To make sure that the study is valid, the researcher must make a lot of choices on the questions asked and variables used. They have to decide on what factors they will focus on. In different fields of science different theoretical background is used so different choices are made. What and how is asked has huge implications on how videly the results can be generalized and the limitations should be discussed in the report.

The superficial and random way N tries to use science to backup his arguments is simply unscientific. He may be right or wrong in his assumptions, but as argumentation it has little value. Basically he is presenting his opinions based on what he thinks he knows and what he believes just like everyone else on this forum. Maybe his opinions are more informed than your own since he has more life experience. Or not. But I would advice for you to just evaluate his writings as what they are, ignoring his "scientific" proofs.

Isn't that exactly what Nyiregyhazi thinks is completely useless - female advice? If you think women's opinions are valuable too, how so? I'm not saying he's right, but I want to clarify how you would differ from his view that women never know what they're talking about.

Traditionally women's opinions have had little value and globally still do. It's only in such strange cultures like the one I live in where men have been forced to listen to them and actually take them into account. I don't think I can quote any scientific study that would show that women know what they are talking about. I'm afraid you will have to find out yourself

[cuberdrift]

I think it's pretty useless now to continue arguing against Nyiregyhazi since he'll just come back to the same conclusions over and over again. Anyway, I sort of get his point - trying one's best to show confidence and overcome insecurities - if he wants to succeed with women.

It's his inflexible ideology that disturbs me. He doesn't seem to want to be convinced of any other alternative other than his general belief of women should behave all the time. He's probably assuming too much about how women react to such simple mishaps on the part of us gentlemen. I'll never know how that girl really felt about that situation and I know I shouldn't care anyway.

Whether or not his theory is perfectly reliable remains to be seen. I hope I had made myself clear here in all my ramblings here.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm afraid I do not really have time to write a more thorough explanation. It would require extensive background explanations and become a textbook

If you want to understand more get some books that cover scientific methodology and philosophy. They make interesting reading, I promise!

But may I stress again: Without reading the whole research report and understanding the methods and theoretical background it's simply impossible to evaluate whether the results are applicable in your situation or in general in any different circumstances.

There are some things to consider with any study:

Reliability: It basically means whether the study is well done and the results are consistent in that research setting. I have not questioned this at all.

Validity: Does it measure what it is supposed to measure? Are the questions asked the right ones? To make sure that the study is valid, the researcher must make a lot of choices on the questions asked and variables used. They have to decide on what factors they will focus on. In different fields of science different theoretical background is used so different choices are made. What and how is asked has huge implications on how videly the results can be generalized and the limitations should be discussed in the report.

The superficial and random way N tries to use science to backup his arguments is simply unscientific. He may be right or wrong in his assumptions, but as argumentation it has little value. Basically he is presenting his opinions based on what he thinks he knows and what he believes just like everyone else on this forum. Maybe his opinions are more informed than your own since he has more life experience. Or not. But I would advice for you to just evaluate his writings as what they are, ignoring his "scientific" proofs.


Traditionally women's opinions have had little value and globally still do. It's only in such strange cultures like the one I live in where men have been forced to listen to them and actually take them into account. I don't think I can quote any scientific study that would show that women know what they are talking about. I'm afraid you will have to find out yourself

That's a very cheap shot. Nobody said women's opinions are less valuable than men's. I said they are less equipped to understand what they are attracted by than men who learned reliable ways to reliably attract women. Note that I didn't say all men understand more than women. I specificied that those who HAD TO LEARN HOW TO SUCCEED, will be more informed than an individual's attempt to self-analyse. The specific sex isn't actually fundamental to the reasoning. It merely happens that only men or lesbians can get a true insight into what works, via experience. Even lesbians are generally attracted by different things in women, so it's basically just men that can truly road test female attraction to men.

You can talk all you like the about scientific method, but you haven't abided by it. You use one argument to write off what you don't wish to consider and then suggest that hearsay from your friends is more valuable (even though what a person says can clearly not contradict a theory that what they say is generally reflective of what they are not really attracted by) . A scientific approach would be to look for experiments that contradict the results- in order to show that they are not representative of a norm. Even if you specifically proved that the results were spurious, to default to assumptions of sameness in both genders is staggeringly irrational and in no way scientific. It's a faith, not a scientifically credible or logical assumption to work from. Do you have a shred of evidence that there are no discernable differences in behaviour that correlate strongly with gender? No, you merely have a religious faith in the ideal. There is abundant evidence that are indeed trends, some very strong indeed. You just abuse the need to stay skeptical in science to casually write off any piece of evidence that doesn't suit your assumptions and them happily default to a rationally unsupportable assumption of sameness- without applying ANY demands for such a ridiculous position to be either more thoroughly evidenced, or even evidenced AT ALL!!!

See no less a source than the biologist Steven Pinker

https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/pinker_corredspondence_with_dan_slater.pdf

He makes very many of the same points I made myself here-including the outrageous fallacy of defaulting to assumptions of sameness among sexes.

[nyiregyhazi]

I think it's pretty useless now to continue arguing against Nyiregyhazi since he'll just come back to the same conclusions over and over again. Anyway, I sort of get his point - trying one's best to show confidence and overcome insecurities - if he wants to succeed with women.

It's his inflexible ideology that disturbs me. He doesn't seem to want to be convinced of any other alternative other than his general belief of women should behave all the time. He's probably assuming too much about how women react to such simple mishaps on the part of us gentlemen. I'll never know how that girl really felt about that situation and I know I shouldn't care anyway.

Ahem. I made my position clear via the poker analogy. Please don't misrepresent it quite so grossly. I believe in using knowledge about prevailing trends to my advantage. Not in assuming that all women behave the same all the time or that you can predict every individual thing. However, the neediness and frustration issue is really as close to a universal thing as there can be (except for women with lower self-esteem and probably less than great looks, who are more willing to accept such things to get a mate). Has she since stayed in touch or been ignoring messages? These things really do matter. If you want to come across well, you need to stop stressing the fact that she was rude if she read your message. She wasn't. It's not rude to be too busy to reply to an internet from a casual acquaintance within a 24 hour deadline. If you don't want to be straight back here with the next rant about being slighted, you have to stop expecting to be able control how people behave towards you and above all stop getting frustrated if the terms of a non-existent social contract fail to be met. Until you stop expecting control over such things and dwelling on the fact you didn't get what you wanted, you will almost certainly convey a negative impression of a needy male who is deeply frustrated about not having control. The first step of moving on is to accept that she had every right not to reply within 24 hrs and to appreciate that how you and your closest friends operate is not a universal social rule that can be imposed on others. Otherwise you'll be here time after time. It's absolutely not a myth how effectively women pick up on these kinds of things within a person's demeanour, or how off-putting pent up internal frustrations are to them.

PS. After a few initial dates, I didn't see the girl I ended up going out with for quite a few months for a month (after an appendix operation) and we only had occasional contact by text. If I'd started badgering her if she didn't reply to a text in some imaginary time limit, or tried to insist that we meet sooner we'd probably have never even seen each other again. Women need to be given space and they don't respond well to people who crave attention. This is not a wild hypothesis but a simple and logical result of the fact that females are more used to being dogged by annoying male pursuers than men are by female ones. One sniff of association to the character traits and you're in the stalker folder.