|
|
|
|
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/2/2009 11:24:17 AM |
I would LOVE to hear the "logic" behind why ANY of that is a problem. You SHOULD be picky and critical about everything to do with your partner, including looks. The real question is, what perception do you have about yourself that is making you think you deserve an "equal" in every respect but physical attractiveness? (granted, you only have one semi-obscure picture in your profile, but on all accounts you seem quite attractive)
Did you miss the part where I stated that objectively, I think this boy is about my equal in every way INCLUDING in the looks department? And then I said that I think the problem is, I only seem to feel definite physical attraction when I believe someone is BETTER looking than myself? There are girls that get tons of attention for their looks -trust me, I'm not one of them.
I would LOVE to hear the "logic" behind why ANY of that is a problem. You SHOULD be picky and critical about everything to do with your partner, including looks
I think there is nothing healthy about the men who only find women who are models or barbies attractive. Sometimes I feel like the female equivalent of that male stereotype.
The fact that you even include any guys you dated from ages 13 to 18 is, in and of itself, very telling
I actually didn't date any guys until I was 18, because even though I very much wanted to, had a sexual drive and all that, I never thought the ones who liked me were good-looking enough... | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/2/2009 11:53:45 AM |
Did you miss the part where I stated that objectively, I think this boy is about my equal in every way INCLUDING in the looks department? And then I said that I think the problem is, I only seem to feel definite physical attraction when I believe someone is BETTER looking than myself? There are girls that get tons of attention for their looks -trust me, I'm not one of them.
If you TRULY think he is your equal in every way, although your previous posts say otherwise, then have at it. Sounds like you are good to go...minus the geographical logistics issue.
I think there is nothing healthy about the men who only find women who are models or barbies attractive. Sometimes I feel like the female equivalent of that male stereotype.
You can't help what you are attracted to, it is biological. If you are seeking model-type men simple as a means of overcompensation, however, then yes, that would be a problem.
I actually didn't date any guys until I was 18, because even though I very much wanted to, had a sexual drive and all that, I never thought the ones who liked me were good-looking enough...
Well, you said you'd been waiting 10 years, so i assumed 13-23. Regardless, that makes my point even stronger. You've only been dating a grand total of FIVE years!!! You could have a little more faith in humanity than that. As i said, this level of bitterness and resentfulness is usually reserved for the 35+ crowd. | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/2/2009 11:58:51 AM | oohlala, do what YOU want to do. To me, as long as the both of you realize that there may be NOTHING that will come of this 3 day period other than the fact that right now at this time, you care about each other.
NOW, you and he are the only things that matter. It's good that you're thinking of the future, but don't think too much or you'll miss an opportunity that you will wonder about for the rest of your life.
Be careful, be protective...but do it.
I'm probably just talking out of envy, but I missed many opportunities when I was your age. Don't you miss one.
but, as always, that just my opinion. | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/2/2009 1:20:01 PM |
If you TRULY think he is your equal in every way, although your previous posts say otherwise, then have at it.
My posts never said otherwise. You seem to be assuming that feelings of physical attraction will be strong for someone who you think to be comparable to yourself in the looks department. For me, those feelings of attraction aren't about how someone compares to me, but about how close they look to movie stars (essentially). I am very attracted to the younger George Clooney, for instance. Does that mean I would have a chance in hell with him? I don't think so...
Obviously the other kid involved in this scenario is less shallow and critical, since he IS very attracted to me in every way. Or maybe he DOES think I'm better-looking than he is... I wouldn't know. But I don't really think I am, so *shrug*
You can't help what you are attracted to, it is biological.
I don't think that's true. I think there's a very large psychological/experiential component, and that most academics who study attraction would agree with that.
Well, you said you'd been waiting 10 years, so i assumed 13-23. Regardless, that makes my point even stronger. You've only been dating a grand total of FIVE years!!!
Actually I've said that in 10 years I've never met a guy who I was VERY physically attracted to who also appreciated me, at least to the extent necessary for a relationship. That's true regardless of whether I was dating or not. (Because if in those first five years I'd met a guy who I was very attracted to who appreciated me, I obviously would have dated him, duh) | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/2/2009 4:17:57 PM | do you want something?or a fling?
if you want to have a fling? have sex
if you want to have something? be his friend...make him work for you
men love to chase...it makes them feel powerful | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/3/2009 9:10:17 PM | Jackal123,
I'm actually kind of disappointed you quit responding. I think this was an interesting exchange, albeit different than the original topic...
This whole topic is very interesting to me... how picky we really have a right to be, philosophies of how you choose a partner, etc. | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/4/2009 12:56:52 AM | I was trying not to monopolize the thread. ;)
My posts never said otherwise. You seem to be assuming that feelings of physical attraction will be strong for someone who you think to be comparable to yourself in the looks department. For me, those feelings of attraction aren't about how someone compares to me, but about how close they look to movie stars (essentially). I am very attracted to the younger George Clooney, for instance. Does that mean I would have a chance in hell with him? I don't think so...
If you literally mean specific movie stars and not just very good looking people, i admit that is a little strange and probably worth exploring. That said, you have obviously dated a fair amount in the past and i'm willing to bet most of your previous boyfriends did not literally look like specific movie stars. So while you may have that going on the back of your head, in the end you do succumb to reality. (and please don't tell me that all your previous boyfriends looked like movie starts because i won't believe you)
Obviously the other kid involved in this scenario is less shallow and critical, since he IS very attracted to me in every way. Or maybe he DOES think I'm better-looking than he is... I wouldn't know. But I don't really think I am, so *shrug*
Shallow is a misnomer since wanting to be with someone very attractive (not necessarily conventionally attractive but attractive to you ) is not "shallow" in any way. It is as important to a helathy relationship as things like personality, intelligence or sense of humor. In any case, as i mentioned before, i'm positive he thinks you are more attractive, which is part of the allure to you in the first place.
I don't think that's true. I think there's a very large psychological/experiential component, and that most academics who study attraction would agree with that.
Actually, i can point you to specific research which shows otherwise (if you are really interested). Yes, there is a psychological component but there is evidence to suggest that basic desires (such as liking a blonde over a brunette) has a strong genetic link. On the other hand, you wanting to be with movie stars is definitely psychological.
Actually I've said that in 10 years I've never met a guy who I was VERY physically attracted to who also appreciated me, at least to the extent necessary for a relationship. That's true regardless of whether I was dating or not. (Because if in those first five years I'd met a guy who I was very attracted to who appreciated me, I obviously would have dated him, duh)
Honestly, the fact that you were even thinking that strongly about dating and men appreciating you at such a young age, explains a lot. It's still obvious to me, however, that this new guy is an experiment of sorts. Things haven't worked for you in the past so you are trying something extreme on the other end of the spectrum. Thus, it is no surprise that this would be so appealing, just as anything novel is at the beginning. You've put yourself in a position where you don't have to worry about feeling "good enough" for the person you've with...which is by design. The question remains if, when all is said and done, you can sleep at night thinking he's good enough for you. | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/4/2009 5:31:24 AM |
If you literally mean specific movie stars and not just very good looking people, i admit that is a little strange and probably worth exploring. That said, you have obviously dated a fair amount in the past and i'm willing to bet most of your previous boyfriends did not literally look like specific movie stars. So while you may have that going on the back of your head, in the end you do succumb to reality. (and please don't tell me that all your previous boyfriends looked like movie starts because i won't believe you)
I'm not sure if I mean specific movie stars -maybe just very good-looking people. That being said, I have actually dated very little. (Though had several other guys I wanted to date who didn't want to date me.) Of the 3-4 guys I have gone on what I would actually classify as "dates" with, the 2 who I was really attracted to in that kind of burning way did happen to remind me of specific movie stars. I thought the one looked like Heath Ledger as soon as I saw him, and the other, when he took off his classes to make out, looked like Johnny Depp (and he actually gets told that a lot, so it's not just me). Oh, and the first one was a rock star, heh. We only hooked up one time...
Actually, i can point you to specific research which shows otherwise (if you are really interested). Yes, there is a psychological component but there is evidence to suggest that basic desires (such as liking a blonde over a brunette) has a strong genetic link. On the other hand, you wanting to be with movie stars is definitely psychological.
I think I know my way around scientific research as well as any layperson... I actually participated in some behavioral research for awhile as an assistant researcher. And? Well, often times I read studies like that and they seem poorly designed...
HOW exactly would you determine that liking blonde hair is genetic? I mean, if every male in the family likes blonde hair, maybe it has to do with the values you were raised with... What about black men who like blonde hair? Probably a thousand years ago, most of them never would have SEEN blonde hair. And then there's the fact that, well, every survey I've ever seen on the topic shows that actually most men prefer brown hair... although you can find a preference for pretty much anything. But no, I don't really want to spend a lot of time debating the science, because I've found that many guys really, REALLY want to believe that their physical preferences are innate... it's so much easier than questioning social conditioning or having to deal with being accused of shallowness. And then when women complain about being objectified by men you can just throw up your hands and say "I can't help it! Men are visual creatures! It's genetic!!" | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/4/2009 5:32:09 AM |
If you literally mean specific movie stars and not just very good looking people, i admit that is a little strange and probably worth exploring. That said, you have obviously dated a fair amount in the past and i'm willing to bet most of your previous boyfriends did not literally look like specific movie stars. So while you may have that going on the back of your head, in the end you do succumb to reality. (and please don't tell me that all your previous boyfriends looked like movie starts because i won't believe you)
I'm not sure if I mean specific movie stars -maybe just very good-looking people. That being said, I have actually dated very little. (Though had several other guys I wanted to date who didn't want to date me.) Of the 3-4 guys I have gone on what I would actually classify as "dates" with, the 2 who I was really attracted to in that kind of burning way did happen to remind me of specific movie stars. I thought the one looked like Heath Ledger as soon as I saw him, and the other, when he took off his glasses to make out, looked like Johnny Depp (and he actually gets told that a lot, so it's not just me). Oh, and the first one was a rock star, heh. We only hooked up one time...
Actually, i can point you to specific research which shows otherwise (if you are really interested). Yes, there is a psychological component but there is evidence to suggest that basic desires (such as liking a blonde over a brunette) has a strong genetic link. On the other hand, you wanting to be with movie stars is definitely psychological.
I think I know my way around scientific research as well as any layperson... I actually participated in some behavioral research for awhile as an assistant researcher. And? Well, often times I read studies like that and they seem poorly designed...
HOW exactly would you determine that liking blonde hair is genetic? I mean, if every male in the family likes blonde hair, maybe it has to do with the values you were raised with... What about black men who like blonde hair? Probably a thousand years ago, most of them never would have SEEN blonde hair. And then there's the fact that, well, every survey I've ever seen on the topic shows that actually most men prefer brown hair... although you can find a preference for pretty much anything. But no, I don't really want to spend a lot of time debating the science, because I've found that many guys really, REALLY want to believe that their physical preferences are innate... it's so much easier than questioning social conditioning or having to deal with being accused of shallowness. And then when women complain about being objectified by men you can just throw up your hands and say "I can't help it! Men are visual creatures! It's genetic!!" | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/4/2009 5:35:01 AM |
If you literally mean specific movie stars and not just very good looking people, i admit that is a little strange and probably worth exploring. That said, you have obviously dated a fair amount in the past and i'm willing to bet most of your previous boyfriends did not literally look like specific movie stars. So while you may have that going on the back of your head, in the end you do succumb to reality. (and please don't tell me that all your previous boyfriends looked like movie starts because i won't believe you)
I'm not sure if I mean specific movie stars -I think just very good-looking people. That being said, I have actually dated very little. (Though had several other guys I wanted to date who didn't want to date me.) Of the 3-4 guys I have gone on what I would actually classify as "dates" with, the 2 who I was really attracted to in that kind of burning way did happen to remind me of specific movie stars. I thought the one looked like Heath Ledger as soon as I saw him, and the other, when he took off his glasses to make out, looked like Johnny Depp (and he actually gets told that a lot, so it's not just me). Oh, and the first one was a rock star, heh. We only hooked up one time...
Actually, i can point you to specific research which shows otherwise (if you are really interested). Yes, there is a psychological component but there is evidence to suggest that basic desires (such as liking a blonde over a brunette) has a strong genetic link. On the other hand, you wanting to be with movie stars is definitely psychological.
I think I know my way around scientific research as well as any layperson... I actually participated in some behavioral research for awhile as an assistant researcher. And? Well, often times I read studies like that and they seem poorly designed...
HOW exactly would you determine that liking blonde hair is genetic? I mean, if every male in the family likes blonde hair, maybe it has to do with the values you were raised with... What about black men who like blonde hair? Probably a thousand years ago, most of them never would have SEEN blonde hair. And then there's the fact that, well, every survey I've ever seen on the topic shows that actually most men prefer brown hair... although you can find a preference for pretty much anything. But no, I don't really want to spend a lot of time debating the science, because I've found that many guys really, REALLY want to believe that their physical preferences are innate... it's so much easier than questioning social conditioning or having to deal with being accused of shallowness. And then when women complain about being objectified by men you can just throw up your hands and say "I can't help it! Men are visual creatures! It's genetic!!" | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/4/2009 5:37:34 AM |
If you literally mean specific movie stars and not just very good looking people, i admit that is a little strange and probably worth exploring. That said, you have obviously dated a fair amount in the past and i'm willing to bet most of your previous boyfriends did not literally look like specific movie stars. So while you may have that going on the back of your head, in the end you do succumb to reality. (and please don't tell me that all your previous boyfriends looked like movie starts because i won't believe you)
I'm not sure if I mean specific movie stars -I think just very good-looking people. That being said, I have actually dated very little. (Though had several other guys I wanted to date who didn't want to date me.) Of the 3-4 guys I have gone on what I would actually classify as "dates" with, the 2 who I was really attracted to in that kind of burning way did happen to remind me of specific movie stars. I thought the one looked like Heath Ledger as soon as I saw him, and the other, when he took off his glasses to make out, looked like Johnny Depp (and he actually gets told that a lot, so it's not just me). Oh, and the first one was a rock star, heh. We only hooked up one time...
Actually, i can point you to specific research which shows otherwise (if you are really interested). Yes, there is a psychological component but there is evidence to suggest that basic desires (such as liking a blonde over a brunette) has a strong genetic link. On the other hand, you wanting to be with movie stars is definitely psychological.
I think I know my way around scientific research as well as any layperson... I actually participated in some behavioral research for awhile as an assistant researcher. And? Well, often times I read studies like that and they seem poorly designed...
HOW exactly would you determine that liking blonde hair is genetic? I mean, if every male in the family likes blonde hair, maybe it has to do with the values you were raised with... What about black men who like blonde hair? Probably a thousand years ago, most of them never would have SEEN blonde hair. And then there's the fact that, well, every survey I've ever seen on the topic shows that actually most men prefer brown hair... although you can find a preference for pretty much anything. But no, I don't really want to spend a lot of time debating the science, because I've found that many guys really, REALLY want to believe that their physical preferences are innate... it's so much easier than questioning social conditioning or having to deal with being accused of shallowness. And then when women complain about being objectified by men you can just throw up your hands and say "I can't help it! Men are visual creatures! It's genetic!!" When you get to the bottom line on a lot of this physical preference stuff, it's that as-of-yet we don't have the capability to truly "prove" whether something is environmental or genetic. Because to do that you'd either have to eliminate environmental factors, or eliminate genetic factors, and see if things were still the same. We don't have the capability to do that. So the fact that people are even so invested in trying to say it's overwhelmingly one or the other, makes me suspicious, and makes me think it has a lot to do with more personal motivations. | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/4/2009 5:38:48 AM |
If you literally mean specific movie stars and not just very good looking people, i admit that is a little strange and probably worth exploring. That said, you have obviously dated a fair amount in the past and i'm willing to bet most of your previous boyfriends did not literally look like specific movie stars. So while you may have that going on the back of your head, in the end you do succumb to reality. (and please don't tell me that all your previous boyfriends looked like movie starts because i won't believe you)
I'm not sure if I mean specific movie stars -I think just very good-looking people. That being said, I have actually dated very little. (Though had several other guys I wanted to date who didn't want to date me.) Of the 3-4 guys I have gone on what I would actually classify as "dates" with, the 2 who I was really attracted to in that kind of burning way did happen to remind me of specific movie stars. I thought the one looked like Heath Ledger as soon as I saw him, and the other, when he took off his glasses to make out, looked like Johnny Depp (and he actually gets told that a lot, so it's not just me). Oh, and the first one was a rock star, heh. We only hooked up one time...
Actually, i can point you to specific research which shows otherwise (if you are really interested). Yes, there is a psychological component but there is evidence to suggest that basic desires (such as liking a blonde over a brunette) has a strong genetic link. On the other hand, you wanting to be with movie stars is definitely psychological.
I think I know my way around scientific research as well as any layperson... I actually participated in some behavioral research for awhile as an assistant researcher. And? Well, often times I read studies like that and they seem poorly designed...
HOW exactly would you determine that liking blonde hair is genetic? I mean, if every male in the family likes blonde hair, maybe it has to do with the values you were raised with... What about black men who like blonde hair? Probably a thousand years ago, most of them never would have SEEN blonde hair. And then there's the fact that, well, every survey I've ever seen on the topic shows that actually most men prefer brown hair... although you can find a preference for pretty much anything. But no, I don't really want to spend a lot of time debating the science, because I've found that many guys really, REALLY want to believe that their physical preferences are innate... it's so much easier than questioning social conditioning or having to deal with being accused of shallowness. And then when women complain about being objectified by men you can just throw up your hands and say "I can't help it! Men are visual creatures! It's genetic!!" When you get to the bottom line on a lot of this physical preference stuff, it's that as-of-yet we don't have the capability to truly "prove" whether something is environmental or genetic. Because to do that you'd either have to eliminate environmental factors, or eliminate genetic factors, and see if things were still the same. We don't have the capability to do that. So the fact that people (usually men) are even so invested in trying to say it's overwhelmingly the one most out of our control, makes me suspicious, and makes me think it has a lot to do with more personal motivations. | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/4/2009 9:25:31 AM |
I think I know my way around scientific research as well as any layperson... I actually participated in some behavioral research for awhile as an assistant researcher. And? Well, often times I read studies like that and they seem poorly designed...
I can show you a bunch that are not. Randomized, double-blind, etc.
HOW exactly would you determine that liking blonde hair is genetic? I mean, if every male in the family likes blonde hair, maybe it has to do with the values you were raised with... What about black men who like blonde hair? Probably a thousand years ago, most of them never would have SEEN blonde hair. And then there's the fact that, well, every survey I've ever seen on the topic shows that actually most men prefer brown hair... although you can find a preference for pretty much anything.
It's not any different than the many studies that show that people don't "choose" to be homosexual, it's a genetic predisposition. Gender preference is not completely different from physical preferences. Why do people have favorite colors? Why do people have favorite anythings? Yes, obviously much of it is preference associated with fond memories and experiences but there is something inherent in the fact that certain people like certain things. But like you said, that's a completely different discussion.
But no, I don't really want to spend a lot of time debating the science, because I've found that many guys really, REALLY want to believe that their physical preferences are innate... it's so much easier than questioning social conditioning or having to deal with being accused of shallowness. And then when women complain about being objectified by men you can just throw up your hands and say "I can't help it! Men are visual creatures! It's genetic!!"
I couldn't disagree with you more and i think you completely misunderstood what i was saying. First off, if you think "shallowness" is gender specific, you are dead wrong. Just as many women want guys who are extremely physical attractive as men. It's a complete and utter myth that only guys care about physical attraction and women only care that they are funny and smart. Regardless, i could just as easily make an argument like women who have profile pictures which portray them scantily clad with tons of cleavage or walk around in the same manner, are the same women who then wonder why men objectify them. Also, even if what you were saying was true, would you somehow but ok being objectified if the excuse was social/psychological? I doubt it.
When you get to the bottom line on a lot of this physical preference stuff, it's that as-of-yet we don't have the capability to truly "prove" whether something is environmental or genetic. Because to do that you'd either have to eliminate environmental factors, or eliminate genetic factors, and see if things were still the same. We don't have the capability to do that. So the fact that people (usually men) are even so invested in trying to say it's overwhelmingly the one most out of our control, makes me suspicious, and makes me think it has a lot to do with more personal motivations.
And yet they DO have the capabilities to do precisely what you are talking about. Not to the point where anything can be "proved" per se or to show a cause-effect relationship, but enough to get published and to show correlation. I have no doubt that in the end it will be some combination of the two (environmental/genetic) but the fact that there are many guys who prefer larger, even obese women, should tell you that there is something else going on. Just because there are men who because of the media/TV/societal pressures expect to be with a 100 lbs super model with 36D breasts, does not, in any way, invalidate other men who want to be with someone they find very physically attractive. | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/4/2009 10:33:16 AM |
And yet they DO have the capabilities to do precisely what you are talking about. Not to the point where anything can be "proved" per se or to show a cause-effect relationship, but enough to get published and to show correlation.
You just contradicted yourself in a big way. This sentence says it all. Getting published? So what. The Nazis published tons of studies on why Jews were inferior, up until the 1970s or so you could find studies in the U.S. on how non-whites were inferior, up until the 90s there were all these studies on how women couldn't be as academically successful as men. I'm talking about proving causation. For nearly every published study, there is another published study that disagrees with its conclusions.
the fact that there are many guys who prefer larger, even obese women, should tell you that there is something else going on.
Most of us are also attracted to people who look vaguely like friends or family members, or who we associate with good exeriences early in life. Unless you can eliminate all the other possibilities, you cannot say that something is biological.
can show you a bunch that are not. Randomized, double-blind, etc.
Then you have a very small list of criteria for determining the value of a study. Randomized? Double-blind? So what? The problem with these kinds of studies is that they like prove that men like X, and then they start speculating on why that can be, usually using our general theories of evolution and ideas about human history (also partially speculation, note), etc. Yeah it sounds intellectual, but they don't come close to thoroughly examining all of the various possible relationships that could account for the correlation. They almost NEVER are able to prove causation.
And frankly, studies like this dealing with various topics, have been published almost continually throughout the last two hundred years, and many have been discredited. Do you think someone publishing in 1900 about how blacks had smaller brains than whites thought their methods were rigorous? You bet your pasty arse they did. The nature of science is that you collect "evidence" and you keep questioning things... RARELY is something proven. It's about as much of an intellectual exercise as philosophy, a lot of the time... | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/4/2009 10:35:19 AM |
And yet they DO have the capabilities to do precisely what you are talking about. Not to the point where anything can be "proved" per se or to show a cause-effect relationship, but enough to get published and to show correlation.
You just contradicted yourself in a big way. This sentence says it all. Getting published? So what. The Nazis published tons of studies on why Jews were inferior, up until the 1970s or so you could find studies in the U.S. on how non-whites were inferior, up until the 90s there were all these studies on how women couldn't be as academically successful as men. I'm talking about proving causation. For nearly every published study, there is another published study that disagrees with its conclusions.
the fact that there are many guys who prefer larger, even obese women, should tell you that there is something else going on.
Most of us are also attracted to people who look vaguely like friends or family members, or people who we associate with good exeriences early in life. Unless you can eliminate all the other possibilities, you cannot say that something is biological.
can show you a bunch that are not. Randomized, double-blind, etc.
Then you have a very small list of criteria for determining the value of a study. Randomized? Double-blind? So what? The problem with these kinds of studies is that they like prove that men like X, and then they start speculating on why that can be, usually using our general theories of evolution and ideas about human history (also partially speculation, note), etc. Yeah it sounds intellectual, but they don't come close to thoroughly examining all of the various possible relationships that could account for the correlation. They almost NEVER are able to prove causation.
And frankly, studies like this dealing with various topics, have been published almost continually throughout the last two hundred years, and many have been discredited. Do you think someone publishing in 1900 about how blacks had smaller brains than whites thought their methods were rigorous? You bet your pasty arse they did. The nature of science is that you collect "evidence" and you keep questioning things... RARELY is something proven. It's about as much of an intellectual exercise as philosophy, a lot of the time...
And for the record, that thing about the "gay gene" is FAR from undisputed, and not just be Christian conservatives... it's still a very poorly understood concept. (And I'll bet I have a hell of a lot more gay friends than you do, at that) | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/4/2009 3:22:15 PM | You really shouldn't be talking about contradiction when you use the following two phrases in the SAME post:
I'm talking about proving causation
They almost NEVER are able to prove causation
So on the one hand you say my argument is void because i'm pointing at studies that do not prove causation and yet, in the very next paragraph, you acknowledge that science almost NEVER proves causation. As for the Nazis, i'm not going to even dignify that with a response since comparing scientific empirical data to what the Nazis did is insulting to both people who have to go through those atrocities and to people who perform legitimate "science" now. If you can't see the monumental difference between the two, i certainly can't help you.
Most of us are also attracted to people who look vaguely like friends or family members, or people who we associate with good exeriences early in life. Unless you can eliminate all the other possibilities, you cannot say that something is biological.
Of COURSE you can, that's precisely how science works. It's "best guess" not absolute certainty. If you are waiting for people to publish anything that eliminates "all other possibilities then i wouldn't hold your breath because that's not how it works.
Then you have a very small list of criteria for determining the value of a study. Randomized? Double-blind? So what? The problem with these kinds of studies is that they like prove that men like X, and then they start speculating on why that can be, usually using our general theories of evolution and ideas about human history (also partially speculation, note), etc. Yeah it sounds intellectual, but they don't come close to thoroughly examining all of the various possible relationships that could account for the correlation. They almost NEVER are able to prove causation.
WHAT?! I honestly don't believe you know the first thing about how science, research, or publishing works if you are going to make statements like that. Randomized Controlled Trials are accepted as THE gold standard in today's society. I'm sorry you didn't know that. If your argument is that there are people who manipulate statistics and data to get their desired results, sure, it happens. But to claim that because of that small minority ALL published articles are invalid and biased is absolutely ridiculous and just downright ignorant. If you want to be that cynical, you are welcome to live like that. Again, nothing i say will change that.
And frankly, studies like this dealing with various topics, have been published almost continually throughout the last two hundred years, and many have been discredited.
Oh really? Please point me to one.
Do you think someone publishing in 1900 about how blacks had smaller brains than whites thought their methods were rigorous?
Please point out where i was talking about studies published in the 1900s.
The nature of science is that you collect "evidence" and you keep questioning things... RARELY is something proven. It's about as much of an intellectual exercise as philosophy, a lot of the time...
You are absolutely DEAD wrong if you think that's what science is. It is not "abstract" and sure as hell isn't philosophy. It's hard empirical data based on probabilities. While that doesn't make it 100% accurate, it certainly does not make it the crap shoot you seem to think it is.
And I'll bet I have a hell of a lot more gay friends than you do, at that
Right, because you having more gay friends OBVIOUSLY lends you more credibility when talking about them.  | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/4/2009 6:51:15 PM |
So on the one hand you say my argument is void because i'm pointing at studies that do not prove causation and yet, in the very next paragraph, you acknowledge that science almost NEVER proves causation.
That's exactly my point, actually. That I think citing science when it comes to these matters, as though it's some sort of empirical truth, is silly, because that's very rarely actually the case.
WHAT?! I honestly don't believe you know the first thing about how science, research, or publishing works if you are going to make statements like that.
Well, my research was almost published. My research partner did not complete their part of the work. But, I have worked under a couple of researchers who are widely considered top of their field.
Randomized Controlled Trials are accepted as THE gold standard in today's society.
Of course that's one thing studies should have. But that's not the only thing to be taken into account in the design of a good study. And it doesn't even begin to address the particular problems I was pointing out with the studies on things people find attractive, and to what extent it is biological.
As for the Nazis, i'm not going to even dignify that with a response since comparing scientific empirical data to what the Nazis did is insulting to both people who have to go through those atrocities and to people who perform legitimate "science" now.
Yes and I see how you conveniently ignored the more recent racist and sexist studies that occured in our democratic, capitalistic U.S. society.
Oh really? Please point me to one.
That is what science is all about. At the end of a typical scientific research paper the researcher presents "theories" that could explain the phenomenon described in the paper. Very often these "theories" are no longer the ones being presented most often to explain that phenomenon a decade or two down the line.
I could do research and come up with some citations if I really wanted, but I don't. You could find plenty of books on the history of science and those kinds of topics, if you wanted. Most of the specific cases I've heard of were just mentioned in passing in my Anthropology textbooks. But if you want a little snippet of how credible and ethical relatively recent publishable research in the U.S. can be, try googling "Tuskegee Study" | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/4/2009 9:13:01 PM | Ok, what once started as mildly entertaining and interesting has now devolved into the rantings of a 23 year old who once googled an article she didn't completely understand. I leave it for someone else to humor you from here on out.
Good luck. | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/5/2009 3:43:26 AM | One of my best friends is doing an Honors Research Project on the Tuskegee study, you pompous a$$.
And do you even know what "double-blind" means? That's only even relevant in clinical trials, which has nothing to do with studies claiming that a preference for blonde hair is genetic.
And I noticed how you stopped addressing the part where I was claiming my personal standards for looks were unrealistically picky and I think probably heavily influenced by the media.
But you throw a terse insult about my age and my gender, and a tone of superiority, and refuse to engage any further. Good job. I think you look like a total a$$, but I guess PoF readership gets to decide for themselves. | |
|
| 3 days... worth starting something?
Posted: 9/5/2009 6:43:56 AM |
One of my best friends is doing an Honors Research Project on the Tuskegee study
You consistently seem to think that you having ANY sort of association with certain people makes you some sort of authority on every subject. GET OVER YOURSELF.
you pompous a$$
Oh the sweet, sweet irony.
And do you even know what "double-blind" means? That's only even relevant in clinical trials, which has nothing to do with studies claiming that a preference for blonde hair is genetic.
Thank you for once again proving that your knowledge of science and research does not extend beyond anything you are not able to google.
And I noticed how you stopped addressing the part where I was claiming my personal standards for looks were unrealistically picky and I think probably heavily influenced by the media.
I suggest you go back and re-read this thread as throughout our "discussion" you have conveniently only responded to parts of my responses, no doubt because you had no legitimate answer for the parts you ignored. Regardless, you are delusional and blind if you think i did not answer that particular question.
But you throw a terse insult about my age and my gender, and a tone of superiority, and refuse to engage any further. Good job.
A tone of superiority should be very familiar to you as it is the ONLY way you engage people on this forum. And yes i refuse to engage any further with someone who has no interest in actually debating a topic but rather spouting off buzz words in the hopes that it makes her look intelligent and profound to a bunch of people she doesn't even know. At every turn you over-compensate to make yourself feel better - i've had all this amazing sex, i've slept with someone within 3 hours of meeting them, i've dated guys who look like movie stars, i've done cutting-edge research, i've been published, i know so-and-so... Oh the two of us, YOU are the only one who keeps spouting her resume. If you think anyone on here with half a brain can't see right through you, you are extremely naive as well.
I think you look like a total a$$, but I guess PoF readership gets to decide for themselves
And you are an obnoxious, arrogant, extremely insecure, attention-whore, who thinks she can inflate her fragile ego and low self-esteem on an anonymous internet forum by talking out of her a$$. Oh and i've received several emails already from random people who have expressed similar sentiments. So yes, PLEASE let the PoF readership decide for themselves. | |
|
| |
|
|
Home
login 
