NT women cant stand aspie men!

Post Reply New Topic

this article states that some PUA strategies are supported by science and some of them are not, i.e.:



though the conclusion then trails off at the end and vaguely says something like "if men use it ethically like women use manipulation like makeup to initiate LTRs, we wholeheartedly support it", which hilariously is neither advocated by the books they reviewed nor particularly effective for that purpose! they only ever compared the books against initial attraction, never against actual LTR effectiveness, so the study overreaches itself by making a recommendation.


with this study, it says almost exactly what i said about 5 pages back, well whaddya know:




this study was nothing to do with anything we have discussed, so i am not sure why you threw in this red herring. that entire study is negated by women who take the pill.

obviously i was going to actually read the studies you posted, which i think would have been a good idea for you to do as well. all you did was reinforce what i already said - that you are assuming too much about people. you cannot possibly know the myriad factors that go into any other person's decision making process regarding dating. you can speculate, you can chip away at bit and pieces, but you don't have the whole picture.


i am not so sure if i can return that compliment, considering the studies you posted. :/

but your current viewpoint is irrational. i mean, you think you are an extra special person who deserves something better than other people. that is not really rational.

no, i do not see a magical reality. i see the same world as you do, it is just that i filter it differently. your filter is no more accurate or true than mine is. i am not sure why some people have this idea that their own worldview is correct simply because... they are seeing it, but maybe someday they'll realise how absurd that idea really is. or not. for now i'll keep laughing.

that's the thing though. people in that negative loop have not necessarily had a worse life to start with. they may have actually had a better life than a person with a good attitude. i've been shocked to hear how good some people's lives are, and yet they carry some pretty crappy attitudes. often, their bad attitudes stem from a disconnect between what life they think they deserve and what life they are able to obtain.

a regular normal life is not good enough for them.
a regular good job is not good enough for them.
a regular partner is not good enough for them.

...because they deserve better than other people, and an average normal life with regular occurrences, like an average number of tragedies and rejections, or a normal job that doesn't involve prestige, is like they are getting flogged by demons in the seventh circle of hell, apparently.

go ahead and play "Crappy Life Bingo" between people with positive and negative attitudes, and i don't think you will find that people with bad attitudes had more instances of abuse neglect, rejection, poverty, unemployment, crime, tragedy, or any other marker of difficulty.

Seeing as how I didn't claim that they all worked and with equal efficacy, this fact is irrelevant.



So? It doesn't matter what the books advocate, it has no bearing on whether or not the tactics and strategies work.



A quick dive through the horrible world of Pick-Up Artistry will reveal that they've got a whole slew of tactics and strategies aimed at men trying to get and maintain an LTR. It's probably only a matter of time before a peer-reviewed study is done on that as well.



The whole point is to show that human attraction can be understood and broken down. Sure not EVERYONE is attracted to "dark" personalities, but what those people ARE attracted to have perfectly logical and sensible explanations as well.



It's not a red herring, it's meant to demonstrate that the myriad of funny human behaviors associated with relationships and sex have been researched and studied for some time now, and that many of the claims that don't even originate within the PUA community are steadily being backed by science. I COULD get a tailored list prepared, but I decided to settle for 3 links I had on hand, I'm only willing to put so much effort into an internet debate designed to kill a little bit of time.



They were the last 3 I've read. You just didn't grasp my purpose in posting them.



...if you say so...I'm pretty sure it reinforced what I SAID, which is that strong, masculine, "alpha" traits are what women are attracted to (which all three studies address), and that female mate selection can be analyzed via science.



Annnnd here we go again. Human brains are not black boxes incapable of being unlocked, we're discovering more and more all the time, and you can make hypotheses based on limited data, it's done in science all the time, and I hate to say it but you probably don't know much about that, because you're not a scientist. If you think scientists run around having 100% of the picture before they formulate hypotheses and theories, I'd honestly wonder how you think science ever gets anywhere. We DON'T know all of the myriad of factors involved in the decision-making process of human beings, but we're starting to understand enough of them to believe we're able to see the big picture.



You misunderstanding the purpose of why I posted them has nothing to do with scientific literacy.



If you don't think people that work extra hard don't deserve extra, then you're seriously the worst kind of leftist. I don't think I'm extra special, I just put in a hell of a lot of work and expect just return on it. Enjoy your evenly-trimmed poppies.



It is my belief that the world we see is the same, and your filter is wrong, while mine is right. Conspiracy theorists who think that reptilians have infiltrated our governments are also seeing the same world, but alas not all filters were created equal...kind of like men.

Respectfully, this is unlikely.

Rule number 1 - womens dating advice SUCKS

Being advised on dating by a straight woman is usually a disaster. They have no experience of your male role, so take everything with a pinch of salt.



Ever been to a foster home? a detention center? A prison?

your studies didn't demonstrate what you thought they did, because they all showed that there were always exceptions. so... people were not entirely predictable, as i have been saying all along. so much for your understanding of the science there.

and you're getting a little odd here:

.... because we're talking about dating.


you can stamp your foot and keep saying it over and over, but that doesn't make it true. you are correct in your eyes, i am correct in my eyes, and we will not see eye-to-eye. there is no right or wrong here, only a difference of perspective. i'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.

Last edited by hyperlexian on 29 Jan 2013, 6:39 am, edited 2 times in total.

I saw 2 massive bull elephants fighting
On tv
The winner got to mate with the females

From the savannah to the city
Via conditioning
Females will be induced to mate with males that meet a certain criteria of acceptable standards
Aspie male characteristics are not totally without favour
Some engineers are needed
So minimal inducement is sufficient
[Hollywood remakes "Revenge of the nerds']
Thoust would know be aspies that govern thine herds of beasts

is that the worst you've had happen?

No.

Did I suggest it was?

many studies fit this bill. It does not mean "the exception proves the rule"

it was a weird question. why did you ask? were you trying to play "Crappy Life Bingo"?

Ive no idea what that is.

It was not a weird question. It was amazement at your POV and the VAST evidence that is counter to it

Incidentally are you an NT woman or an Aspie man?

Last edited by answeraspergers on 29 Jan 2013, 7:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

many studies don't, which also proves the exceptions lol

You make so little sense

You're a noob to look at studies

Rarely are any wholly conclusive one way or the other - very rarely and usually when the study itself is pointless

Last edited by answeraspergers on 29 Jan 2013, 7:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

yeah, it was. kinda random. i thought it was intended as a response to this post:

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5189717.html#5189717

but as you have demonstrated on multiple occasions, it is highly unlikely that you will have a legitimate or serious response to my posts. you will just try to get a reaction instead. silly you! i'll leave you to that.

I dont eat Spam no.

so my responses are "illegitimate"

rather like your assumptions

Honest to god. You have not made one bit of sense in anything I've seen yet. Thats not meant to be rude - its just my POV

Hehe!