NT women cant stand aspie men!

Page 8 of 16 [ 242 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 16  Next

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

28 Jan 2013, 8:54 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
I can't know but certainly much more than 1%! !


It's obviously more than 1%. My whole extended family on my father's side (including my father) is full of narcissists! And they are like 12 siblings! :lol:



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

28 Jan 2013, 8:57 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
you never did give me an estimate of what percent you thought it could be. i noticed that you evaded giving an actual percentage because it would open you to debate. so you were oh-so-certain i was wrong but scared to put your own estimate on the line.

so what is the correct percentage?


I can't know but certainly much more than 1%! !

not a fair answer. i threw a number out there, you can't just call it wrong and try to make me look foolish without putting yourself on the line too. i risked something (look at you, still mocking me over it!) by at least putting a figure on it, are you not brave enough to do the same?


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

28 Jan 2013, 8:59 am

MCalavera wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
I can't know but certainly much more than 1%! !


It's obviously more than 1%. My whole extended family on my father's side (including my father) is full of narcissists! And they are like 12 siblings! :lol:

so what is a better percentage? are you brave enough to be criticised for your estimate or will you hide behind mockery too?


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

28 Jan 2013, 9:02 am

hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
I can't know but certainly much more than 1%! !


It's obviously more than 1%. My whole extended family on my father's side (including my father) is full of narcissists! And they are like 12 siblings! :lol:

so what is a better percentage? are you brave enough to be criticised for your estimate or will you hide behind mockery too?


Hide behind mockery? Did something just happen to you right now? All I was doing was respond to Boo.

I can throw random numbers around, but that doesn't make me brave. It just makes me good at throwing numbers around.

I can definitely say it's larger than 1%. Feel free to criticize me on that.



Last edited by MCalavera on 28 Jan 2013, 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

28 Jan 2013, 9:03 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
if we take the Wizards (the intellects) category for example, the senior scientist with an IQ 150 who's making great achievements is considered an alpha, while the lab assistant is not.

So as you see, not all men can be alphas.

You're just focusing on the PUA's definition of alpha, which is narrow.

sure they could be. he could be the best lab assistant ever, who leads by example. the indispensable technician who gets it right every time and rises to the top of his profession. he could be well-liked and creative on the job. no problem with an alpha lab tech.


Yea, but can ALL the other lab techs be the best tech ever?

no, but he could be the best cook on the block, or the best karaoke singer. i would definitely encourage people to find their niches and to feel good about doing things well. it is attractive to be good at something, even if a person is not the best in the world.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

28 Jan 2013, 9:05 am

MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
I can't know but certainly much more than 1%! !


It's obviously more than 1%. My whole extended family on my father's side (including my father) is full of narcissists! And they are like 12 siblings! :lol:

so what is a better percentage? are you brave enough to be criticised for your estimate or will you hide behind mockery too?


Hide behind mockery? Did something just happen to you right now? All I was doing was respond to Boo.

I can throw random numbers around, but that doesn't make me brave. It just makes me good at throwing numbers around.

I can definitely say it's larger than 1%. Feel free to criticize me on that.

ahhhh so you are not able to say what percent it is, just what you think is wrong. :lol: well done! then you can't really be criticised.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Last edited by hyperlexian on 28 Jan 2013, 9:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Schneekugel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,612

28 Jan 2013, 9:05 am

Shau wrote:
Women don't like the fact that they can be divided up into tiers any more than men do. But let's face reality, sweetie....people are not created equal, and that includes women. That's why there's bums that purposely leech off of the government vs. great men like Richard Feynman that have changed the face of science forever. In turn, some women are simply hotter, more charming, more interesting, more capable...and that makes them higher tier. If you don't like this fact, I invite you to find the nearest hole in the sand and stick your head right in.


Sweetie, face reality. You are not society. You are you. So you are the one deciding if you want to agree with things of society or not. :) And you are the one responsible for following society blindly or not.

When it comes to your great Richard Feynman: I have never heard of him. Cant be that important in the Tiers I decided to be of importance to me.

You are the one to decide which kind of person you want to be, including with it what kind of women attracts you, which seems to be more charming, more interested, more capable for you in .... whatever. When it comes to reality, prefering a women that focuses on her optic also means, that you must respect, that because of that in other tiers she will be uncapable. Telling yourself, that your personal tiers you are responsible for would mean for everyone, is just as if you would believe every men wants to spent his money on a sportscar. :) Sure there are some, sure there are others who tell themself: "Yeah, sportscar would be nice, but just isnt worth it because instead of it .... is much more fun to me. So when this other things gives me more fun, I should focus on that." :)

For you on everything is someone else responsible. So for your problems are responsible the society (which you could choose to ignore, but had to confront yourself with your own responsibility), women (of the tier you yourself have created, which you choose to ignore to not confront yourself with your own responsibility and so on and so on...)

Thats sad, because if there is nothing in your life, you are yourself responsible for, then there is nothing you can change on your own and as long all you can do is endure what other people decide your life to be. :)

Small hint: Because of the expectations you have on women, the higher "tier" (according to your class thoughts) the alpha womens have you speak of, the more possibility they have not only to "catch" an alpha male, but an symphathetic one two. So I dont mind because this is only a forum and I dont know you anyway, but if you act yourself in dates, as you do in the thread, I personally would loose any interest within seconds. And I dont see myself as any tierleader, so regarding to your tierstory, a women with higher tier then mine, would at least have even more expectations i think. (Small joke: Of course this only helps if you feel yourself responsible for your behaviour and its not the aliens or a voodoopriest (or society!) thats responsible for you. )



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

28 Jan 2013, 9:07 am

hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
I can't know but certainly much more than 1%! !


It's obviously more than 1%. My whole extended family on my father's side (including my father) is full of narcissists! And they are like 12 siblings! :lol:

so what is a better percentage? are you brave enough to be criticised for your estimate or will you hide behind mockery too?


Hide behind mockery? Did something just happen to you right now? All I was doing was respond to Boo.

I can throw random numbers around, but that doesn't make me brave. It just makes me good at throwing numbers around.

I can definitely say it's larger than 1%. Feel free to criticize me on that.

ahhhh so you are not able to say what percent it is, just what you think is wrong. :lol: well done! then you can't really be criticised.


Yeah, because not knowing the exact number must logically necessitate that I not know whether the number in question is greater than some other certain number or not. Nice logic there.

Oh, no, I'm being mocked now. :lol:



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

28 Jan 2013, 9:11 am

MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
MCalavera wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
I can't know but certainly much more than 1%! !


It's obviously more than 1%. My whole extended family on my father's side (including my father) is full of narcissists! And they are like 12 siblings! :lol:

so what is a better percentage? are you brave enough to be criticised for your estimate or will you hide behind mockery too?


Hide behind mockery? Did something just happen to you right now? All I was doing was respond to Boo.

I can throw random numbers around, but that doesn't make me brave. It just makes me good at throwing numbers around.

I can definitely say it's larger than 1%. Feel free to criticize me on that.

ahhhh so you are not able to say what percent it is, just what you think is wrong. :lol: well done! then you can't really be criticised.


Yeah, because not knowing the exact number must logically necessitate that I not know whether the number in question is greater than some other certain number or not. Nice logic there.

Oh, no, I'm being mocked now. :lol:

if you know that a number is obviously wrong, you logically must have an estimate in your head. otherwise, you could not know it is wrong. this, you could say, is... obvious... to me. you could not know that something is wrong unless you had another number in your head, or at least a range that you considered reasonable.

so the question is... why aren't you giving your estimate or your range?

(would 2% be accurate?)


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


DialAForAwesome
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Oct 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,189
Location: That place with the thing

28 Jan 2013, 9:15 am

ruckus wrote:
I certainly have noticed a correlation between people who are unlucky in love and people who hold contempt for the world around them and think human beings are inherently bad. What a surprise!


Nooooooot necessarily. From my own anecdotes, I know some people with the worst attitudes known to man (take Shau's misanthropy and multiply it by about 5 and you have how negative their attitudes are) yet they are lucky in love.

Besides that, anybody who has been crapped on long enough by all sorts of people is gonna get a negative attitude about it sooner or later. I would know this, because it happened to me.


_________________
I don't trust anyone because I'm cynical.
I'm cynical because I don't trust anyone.


MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

28 Jan 2013, 9:18 am

hyperlexian wrote:
if you know that a number is obviously wrong, you logically must have an estimate in your head. otherwise, you could not know it is wrong. this, you could say, is... obvious... to me. you could not know that something is wrong unless you had another number in your head, or at least a range that you considered reasonable.

so the question is... why aren't you giving your estimate or your range?

(would 2% be accurate?)


Ok, let's say I was shown a bunch of objects for a little while (like a second or two), and I know there are obviously more than one object to count, and by the time they're covered and out of view, I could only count a few of them.

What does this tell you? That I can't know that there are more than 1 object if I don't know exactly what the number of objects were?

As for why I won't give an estimate, it's for the sake of intellectual honesty. I don't like making stuff up.

And I'm not playing your game.

Good night!



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,121
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

28 Jan 2013, 9:19 am

hyperlexian wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
you never did give me an estimate of what percent you thought it could be. i noticed that you evaded giving an actual percentage because it would open you to debate. so you were oh-so-certain i was wrong but scared to put your own estimate on the line.

so what is the correct percentage?


I can't know but certainly much more than 1%! !

not a fair answer. i threw a number out there, you can't just call it wrong and try to make me look foolish without putting yourself on the line too. i risked something (look at you, still mocking me over it!) by at least putting a figure on it, are you not brave enough to do the same?


:lol:

it has nothing to do with bravery!



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

28 Jan 2013, 9:21 am

DialAForAwesome wrote:
ruckus wrote:
I certainly have noticed a correlation between people who are unlucky in love and people who hold contempt for the world around them and think human beings are inherently bad. What a surprise!


Nooooooot necessarily. From my own anecdotes, I know some people with the worst attitudes known to man (take Shau's misanthropy and multiply it by about 5 and you have how negative their attitudes are) yet they are lucky in love.

Besides that, anybody who has been crapped on long enough by all sorts of people is gonna get a negative attitude about it sooner or later. I would know this, because it happened to me.

yes, some people are negative and still end up getting dates, it's true.

and on the flip side, not everyone who gets crapped one ends up with an attitude to match. there is this idea that people who see the world in more pleasant terms somehow had it easier out of the starting gates, and it just isn't necessarily true. some of the people with the worst attitudes i've ever seen had nothing particularly bad happen (or even had very good lives), and many people with bad experiences have a good outlook.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

28 Jan 2013, 9:25 am

MCalavera wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
if you know that a number is obviously wrong, you logically must have an estimate in your head. otherwise, you could not know it is wrong. this, you could say, is... obvious... to me. you could not know that something is wrong unless you had another number in your head, or at least a range that you considered reasonable.

so the question is... why aren't you giving your estimate or your range?

(would 2% be accurate?)


Ok, let's say I was shown a bunch of objects for a little while (like a second or two), and I know there are obviously more than one object to count, and by the time they're covered and out of view, I could only count a few of them.

What does this tell you? That I can't know that there are more than 1 object if I don't know exactly what the number of objects were?

As for why I won't give an estimate, it's for the sake of intellectual honesty. I don't like making stuff up.

And I'm not playing your game.

Good night!

i am glad you admitted that you just don't know. if you can't even give an estimate, then i would not trust you to know whether my own estimate is correct.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


mds_02
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,077
Location: Los Angeles

28 Jan 2013, 9:35 am

hyperlexian wrote:
yes, some people are negative and still end up getting dates, it's true.

and on the flip side, not everyone who gets crapped one ends up with an attitude to match. there is this idea that people who see the world in more pleasant terms somehow had it easier out of the starting gates, and it just isn't necessarily true. some of the people with the worst attitudes i've ever seen had nothing particularly bad happen (or even had very good lives), and many people with bad experiences have a good outlook.


Absolutely. A person's attitude often has much more to do with how they feel they should be treated than with how they've actually been treated.

To be clear; not implying anything about anyone here.



ruckus
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 398
Location: Australia

28 Jan 2013, 9:47 am

DialAForAwesome wrote:
ruckus wrote:
I certainly have noticed a correlation between people who are unlucky in love and people who hold contempt for the world around them and think human beings are inherently bad. What a surprise!


Nooooooot necessarily. From my own anecdotes, I know some people with the worst attitudes known to man (take Shau's misanthropy and multiply it by about 5 and you have how negative their attitudes are) yet they are lucky in love.

Besides that, anybody who has been crapped on long enough by all sorts of people is gonna get a negative attitude about it sooner or later. I would know this, because it happened to me.

You're right, sometimes people just get lucky no matter their attitude, but I don't think it's totally out there to say that people who have particularly negative outlooks on life may have negative experiences in romance.