Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm always surprised that people read this stuff and swallow it wholesale. Regardless of that I have a different interpretation of the results. What this says to me is that one in five are mine to lose. Who knew the odds were so good?
This is not too big of a surprise. The definition of a pretty boy is a man/boy who is feminine-like in features or other qualities. In our society, it is acceptable for women to compliment on each other looks, boobs, and booty and not be questioned as lesbians. I bet if there was a survey done questioning women on the percentage of women they think are attractive, the ratio would be much higher in favor of attractive women compare to men.
So you think our cases is special? That hardly anyone are friends for a while before they get together?
Yes, yes I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
And we are on a relationship forums. Anecdotal evidence is used a lot on relationship forums.
Anecdotes are acceptable when the opposing argument has only anecdotes to make it's case. However, in the case where the opposing side has actual data and hard numbers, anecdotal evidence means nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
Also, the only statistics you have given us, is some data from one online dating site. And then you have assumed with zero evidence that is a microcosm of the real world. In reality, you got nothing, you don't even have anecdotal evidence.
That's how the scientific method works. You make perfectly reasonable and valid assumptions until further evidence shows that those assumptions are no longer valid. For example, for thousands of years scientists thought heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects until Galileo came along and proved that assumption was unfounded. It wasn't enough for Galileo to claim "you guys have to show that is true for all objects otherwise the assumption is unfounded" but rather he had to demonstrate the assumption was not consistent with reality. In this case, it is no different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
Aha... so claiming people have different standards for hookups and long term relationships is a ridiculous claim.
Yes, it is a ridiculous claim. I'd gladly look at the evidence you have to support your claim, but you have none because such evidence doesn't exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
Sorry the one who makes an assumption has to prove it. It is not my job to prove your assumption is wrong. Your claim that it is conventional wisdom, and should be accepted by default, is totally ridiculous. Get your head back into the real world
Again, I'm actually not making a claim, you are. You're claiming my assumption, which is perfectly reasonable and mundane, is wrong because the online dating world is filled with crazies and losers. For the nth time, the burden of proof is on you to show that this claim is correct. You have no data, no evidence, not even informal numbers and thus would rather continue this pointless rambling and in the hope of discrediting me rather than presenting an argument that is supported with facts. Until you can provide some solid evidence, I'm done here.
I'm always surprised that people read this stuff and swallow it wholesale. Regardless of that I have a different interpretation of the results. What this says to me is that one in five are mine to lose. Who knew the odds were so good?
The problem is that he makes a lot of ridiculous assumptions that needs to be true for his claim to be true. When confronted then this self-proclaimed PhD scientist, ask us to prove his assumptions are not true.
1. He claims the online dating community of one site, is a perfect microcosm of the real dating life
2. He claims personality do not matter, and women decide if they want to date someone in the first second.
In reality, women perception of male attractiveness changes over time. I will let someone else say it.
Quote:
Women can be drawn to men’s looks upon first sight, just as men are by women’s looks, but unlike men, women can (and will) nearly instantly lose the thrall they feel in the presence of a good-looking man should his behavior and conversation come across as unattractively beta.
Women will gradually perceive a man’s looks getting better over time if he possesses other attractiveness traits (e.g., charm, fame, social savvy) or if the woman in question has fallen in love with him. “Time”, in this context, can be as long as years or as short as a few minutes. A man running tight game *will* be perceived as better looking by women. A man in a relationship who is loved by his girlfriend or wife will also enjoy the benefit of positively altered female perception of his looks.
There is one caveat: early in a relationship, when the feelings of love are strongest (3 months to 2 years, depending on his basal oxytocin levels), a man will be so infused with a dopamine high that his woman will seem more beautiful to him than when they started dating fornicating. Although — and this cannot be stressed enough — NEVER will she seem more beautiful than when he FIRST laid eyes on her. That initial blast of lust is impossible to duplicate.
The above observation of the female inclination to perceive a lover’s looks in more favorable terms explains the time-tested wisdom that a woman in love thinks her man better looking than he is. I believe this change in perception is so powerful that it actually reflects a neural rewiring of a woman’s brain circuitry when gazing upon the visage of a man she loves. Similar radical alterations in female perception happen when a woman is pleasantly surprised by a charismatic man who is successfully seducing her despite his unimpressive looks.
The problem is that he makes a lot of ridiculous assumptions that needs to be true for his claim to be true. When confronted then this "scientis" ask us to prove his assumptions are not true.
And yet, you have continuously failed in showing those allegedly ridiculous assumptions to be incorrect. Just because they don't fit with your rose-tinted world view doesn't make them any less correct. You've been claiming all throughout this thread that looks don't matter to women and only personality does, despite the fact you've provided zero evidence to support such a wild claim.
I'll say it again: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have provided none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
Chateau Heartiste
Ah yes, why don't we just defer to snake-oil salesman like PUAs who are clearly trying to make a quick buck by selling falsehoods to desperate and sexually frustrated men?
Yes, yes I do. Why else do you think the term "friendzone" is so popular?
And why do people talk about escaping the friend zone? Also, the friend zone is not a clear defined area. You can be inbetween the friend zone and dating. It really depends.
Quote:
Anecdotes are acceptable when the opposing argument has only anecdotes to make it's case. However, in the case where the opposing side has actual data and hard numbers, anecdotal evidence means nothing.
You don't have any data either, because it is based on unproven assumptions.
Quote:
That's how the scientific method works. You make perfectly reasonable and valid assumptions until further evidence shows that those assumptions are no longer valid. For example, for thousands of years scientists thought heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects until Galileo came along and proved that assumption was unfounded. It wasn't enough for Galileo to claim "you guys have to show that is true for all objects otherwise the assumption is unfounded" but rather he had to demonstrate the assumption was not consistent with reality. In this case, it is no different.
You really need to take a basic class of science. That is not an assumption. That light objects fall slower than heavy objects is an observation.
You don't have any evidence or observations to support your assumptions.
Quote:
Again, I'm actually not making a claim, you are. You're claiming my assumption, which is perfectly reasonable and mundane, is wrong because the online dating world is filled with crazies and losers. For the nth time, the burden of proof is on you to show that this claim is correct. You have no data, no evidence, not even informal numbers and thus would rather continue this pointless rambling and in the hope of discrediting me rather than presenting an argument that is supported with facts. Until you can provide some solid evidence, I'm done here.
That is one of the dumbest thing I have ever read from a self proclaimed PhD scientist.
When you make an assumption, then the burden of proof is on you. It is not my job to prove your assumption is wrong. Sorry, science do not work that way.
And since you have no evidence to support your assumptions, then you have no relevant data.
Again, that is not how science work. It is your job to prove your assumptions. It is not my job to prove your assumptions are incorrect.
I'm done with you. I'll leave you with what I wrote earlier:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
You have no data, no evidence, not even informal numbers and thus would rather continue this pointless rambling and in the hope of discrediting me rather than presenting an argument that is supported with facts.
You can continue this pointless rambling all night long for all I care, but at the end of the day, I have the numbers and the hard data to support my side while you don't have ANY NUMBERS on yours. Your entire argument hinges on whether an assumption is valid or not. The funny thing is, you expect me to support every single assumption with hard numbers, assumptions that simply cannot be supported but only disproved, despite the fact you've been making some very wild and laughable claims and you have not provided any evidence. You're the only one on here making a big fuss over a perfectly valid assumption: that online dating world represents the real world. It's simple, because you're entire delusional argument rests on that assumption not being correct. I can't prove it's completely correct, but I'm more than certain that you have zero evidence to suggest it isn't. Everyone on this board knows your argument at it's core is pure fantasy as even the women on here will admit they at least need to be physically attracted to a potential partner before everything else.
Good night. I have a long day ahead of my tomorrow and I wasted some precious sleep here. If you have any studies to post I'd be more than interested to look at it and go from there, otherwise, save yourself the time and energy.
I'm currently with the second boyfriend I've ever had, before this I was single for 4 years. I've only been asked out on a date by a man 3 times in my entire life, and I'll be 30 next month. So yeah, I can comfortably say that most men don't find me attractive. I don't have low self esteem, I happen to think I'm pretty awesome BUT I also know where I stand when it comes to appearances. It's more of a realist approach than anything, but I don't let it affect my life too much.
Regardless, I treat each man that I meet as an individual and don't have any real steadfast requirements. I've been interested in men of different races, broke and comfortable (I pay my own way so that backround really isn't as important as long as he can support himself), weight (from very thin to obese), different heights (from 5'4 to 7'1) etc etc. Each person is an individual and should be treated as such.
And I have plenty of very short male friends and they rarely have problems with women... but I also have quite a few very tall lady friends and they seem to have problems like mine unless they're VERY VERY thin to make up for their height. That's just the way it is, if a woman is taller than the man, she must be smaller to make up for it weight-wise.
But I'm happy with my guy now, so all of this is moot really.
Northeast men are not so shallow compared to all the men South of the city of South Francisco to San Diego! Flip side I find women in the Northeast more shallow than women in the west coast. A very strange anomaly.
I'm done with you. I'll leave you with what I wrote earlier:
You can continue this pointless rambling all night long for all I care, but at the end of the day, I have the numbers and the hard data to support my side while you don't have any numbers on yours. Your entire argument hinges on whether an assumption is valid or not. The funny thing is, you expect me to support every single assumption with hard numbers, assumptions that simply cannot be supported but only disproved, despite the fact you've been making some very wild and laughable claims and you have not provided any evidence.
Good night. I have a long day ahead of my tomorrow and I wasted some precious sleep here. If you have any studies to post I'd be more than interested to look at it and go from there, otherwise, save yourself the time and energy.
Actually it is your argument that is based on assumptions. You are assuming okcupid is a perfect microcosm of the real world and you are assuming attraction is not influenced by personality. If that is not true, then your whole argument collapses.
Yes, I do expect you to support your critical assumptions. I don't require you to provide numbers, you can use other forms of evidence. But don't try to shift the burden of evidence away from yourself. It is not my job to prove your assumptions are wrong.
And you don't have any numbers either. Numbers based on unproven assumptions are worthless.
Quote:
I can't prove it's completely correct .... Everyone on this board knows your argument at it's core is pure fantasy
So in essence you are wasting our time. You can't prove your assumpetion, hence your assumption is declared invalid and your argument collapses.
And from the response in this thread, it doesn't seem like people agree with you at all.
This is very...interesting. I always was under the assumption the 80/20 rule was anecdotal in nature even if it did make sense, that it could never be determined statistically/numerically. Well here's some actual hard data. According to this, women for the most part are repulsed by the average joe and believe an above average or decent looking man to be unattractive/undesirable. The main rub is that it isn't just attractive women who have these standards, but plain and clearly ugly women on that site also have similar standards despite their relative attractiveness.
Not that there is anything wrong with this, of course, but it would help if women were a lot more honest about it like they were in this survey when given anonymity. It's not about things like "personality" or "confidence", it really is all about looks. Take height, for example. There are countless women out there (more than the majority) who require a potential significant other to be at least 6 ft tall. What they don't realize is that only 13% of men are 6 ft and taller. Hence, it should come as no surprise why so many men fail in the dating world and end up as 40 year old virgins. Most women are simply repulsed by them.
This is not new news and I have been vocal about this for sometime. I do have to say that I have dated and been with women that found me attractive but I did not find them attractive, however I did not mind sleeping with them or spending time with them. As for online dating, I do agree but also depending on location and a sizeable sex ratio that men will have more trouble than women in online dating world. Its no brainer that like men women are also have to be attracted to the opposite sex physically. Online is for unattractive women to find attractive men who are players or already in relationships. Plenty of women in including fat and unattractive types are missing out in good men, for short term in and out relationships with hot guys that never really works out even if a baby is involved or looks severely degrade.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is one of the dumbest thing I have ever read from a self proclaimed PhD scientist.
