|Why do women fall for players?Page 9 of 9 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)|
If one is to reject a "study," or an "observation," one must be able to specify a valid reason to do so
I don't always just "reject" I just don't always "believe'. I do this based on the fact that most studies and observations are based on humans and what they view/feel at that moment of time. Sit 100 people in front of something and ask them what they see. Many times you will get the majority saying they see something and then, there will be a few that see something else. Neither are wrong,yet, if you want, you could conclude the majority are correct in what they view, because the "numbers" say so. Stats can be a funny thing.
I dislike stats and surveys used in discussions. Kinda like the argument of the "legality" of things. Just because something is or isn't "legal" doesn't make things right or wrong in my mind. Then again, I'm not normal, so most people shouldn't even consider my opinion.
|Why do women fall for players?|
Posted: 6/22/2013 1:20:41 PM
If one is to reject a "study," or an "observation," one must be able to specify a valid reason to do so. Not just declare the "all studies are fake," or that "all observations are the result of prejudice."
I don't think all studies are inaccurate. However sometimes they can be inconclusive. I don't think you can generalize an entire group of people. Based on the results of a small sample size that was used in the study.
|Why do women fall for players?|
Posted: 6/22/2013 3:09:13 PM
There are both valid, and invalid "studies" all over the place, just as there are plenty of ways that direct observations can lead to erroneous conclusions (due to prejudices, or previously believed errors).
Very true. I think a vast majority of studies are valid in some sense -- in the evidence they gather, but the conclusion within the study can be incorrect. But even from those, one can take the evidence they gathered while disagreeing with the conclusion. On another thread, a woman posted an interesting article about women being able to pick up guys. IMO, it had a false conclusion that women can't really pick up guys (at the bar, etc) and that it's so difficult. Much of it was based on many guys Preferring to be the ones making the moves... but that assumes that there's a success.
And in some sense, for both genders, we want someone to "catch"... and guys can be taken by surprise if a gal comes onto him blatantly like a classic drunk guy does at a bar to girls ("Okay, what's the catch? Something's afoot in the Circle-K here...!" he may be thinking). But that classic-drunk-guy method isn't THE process of picking someone up, as it has little success.
But with plenty of bar experience of the past & present, at different types of bars, their conclusion is jumping the gun. At best, a gal may get blown off more than one would think -- but for my Observations, as well as my peers' observations, the gal, pound for pound & with equal 'game', will have a much higher batting avg than the guy, hands down.
As far as the "player" thing is concerned -- guys (and gals) who have a lot going for them and are attractive don't need to manipulate anyone. Plus, playing the "treat a girl like a queen/princess" isn't manipulative if you see her as merely decent looking. Manipulating is when you project yourself as wanting to spend all the time in the world with her and go out on dates and OMG I can't believe I met someone like you, etc -- so she gives into a roll in the hay that night because there will be many more nights to follow -- when there's not.
I have had some friends who are classic "tools" and could be labeled as "players" quite easily. They don't promise that when they don't feel that way, and have interest in a possible roll in the hay. I also feel no motive to bring that on, either. If anyone wants to look into "player handbooks" -- it's all about *NOT* treating them like princesses or swooning them to believe you'll wisk them away in Relationship Heaven starting-right-now.