ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 26th January 2019, 07:45 PM   #201
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,224
Originally Posted by novaphile View Post
erm... That's dangerously close to the "exception proves the rule" nonsense.

The exception demonstrates that the rule is incorrect.
It isn't "The exception proves the rule." The correct saying is "The exception proofs the rule."
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2019, 07:52 PM   #202
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 915
Originally Posted by Wirelight View Post
For those that don't think toxic femininity exists, I present this in spades. It's out there, it's real and they're usually too busy blaming men
agreed!

You'll find "toxic" individuals within just about any group.

Quote:
because that's the modern day feminist narrative.
strongly disagree!

You over-generalize individual "toxicity" with the overal narrative itself.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2019, 08:04 PM   #203
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
It isn't "The exception proves the rule." The correct saying is "The exception proofs the rule."
Nobody coined the latter till fairly recently. (Do a google search on it by date excluding results before 2010. Nothing there.)
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2019, 08:05 PM   #204
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,811
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
...Please, do not get into the semantic wanking. It oozes desperation. For every general rule, there are exceptions. The comment was to imply that you were part of the minority, yet you went ahead and inferred that you're "the one." Please.

Argumentum ad you're not doing it right?
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2019, 08:11 PM   #205
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Moderator
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
It isn't "The exception proves the rule." The correct saying is "The exception proofs the rule."
Yeah, except the spelling is wrong.

The correct saying is "proves" and it means "proofs"

Didn't go into that because there is so much rubbish on the internet about it now, you could spend months linking to both sides.
__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2019, 11:29 PM   #206
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,766
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post

Most women do not think they're "settling" when they get married.
How do you know?

Quote:
Most women's relative and comparative physical responses to porn has nothing to do with who they want to share a life with.
It does have something to do with who they are physically attracted to. While that's certainly not the most important part of "who they want to share a life with", or even who they are attracted to, it is an aspect of both of those things.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2019, 11:53 PM   #207
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
How do you know?
Because I've known a lot of women who got married, and absolutely none of them thought that, and it's implausible that those I know are that different from most women.

Quote:
It does have something to do with who they are physically attracted to. While that's certainly not the most important part of "who they want to share a life with", or even who they are attracted to, it is an aspect of both of those things.
Nope. What women react to when looking at porn is basically nonsense in terms of translating it to real life preferences in partners.

Read this paragraph again about women:

Quote:
No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, they showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly ó and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man ó as they watched the apes.
Basically anything/everything qualifies as "very slightly vaguely erotic" to women. There are all sorts of deep psychological stuff going on with those findings.

None of it is even remotely in the ballpark of backing Cain's ideas about looks mattering more to women than we say they do.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 12:07 AM   #208
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,766
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Because I've known a lot of women who got married, and absolutely none of them thought that, and it's implausible that those I know are that different from most women.
You want to throw away all the data from OKcupid on account of it not being representative, but you think that your sample from your life is representative? You also don't think it's possible that you've received biased reporting from the women you know (what I mean is that it's not clear that they would say that had settled if they had)?

It's not clear to me either way, but I just think you're dismissing Delvo's viewpoint based on a lack of evidence when the evidence for your viewpoint is equally lacking (or even more so).



Quote:
Nope. What women react to when looking at porn is basically nonsense in terms of translating it to real life preferences in partners.

Read this paragraph again about women:



Basically anything/everything qualifies as "very slightly vaguely erotic" to women. There are all sorts of deep psychological stuff going on with those findings.

None of it is even remotely in the ballpark of backing Cain's ideas about looks mattering more to women than we say they do.

Thanks, I hadn't actually read the study, based on that quote I think I should do so before commenting further. It seemed to me that you were dismissing the possibility that insight into what women find physically attractive couldn't add any insight into who they would be interested in in a long term relationship, whereas I think that while there are clearly other factors, that is one factor. However, I think you are making a stronger case that the porn study doesn't actually offer insight into what women find physically attractive.

That seems reasonable, so as I said I'll have to check out the study.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 01:00 AM   #209
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,582
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
None of it is even remotely in the ballpark of backing Cain's ideas about looks mattering more to women than we say they do.
Women are generally better than men at multi-tasking, but you seem to get confused easily. These points about looks and sexual arousal are separate. One was never intended to support the other. The common narrative thread is self-deception. You know, because you two are squawking about how attracted you are to a lesbian comedian and Hannibal Lecter, and you're able to deftly bracket out fame/wealth/social status. I'm sorry that observed preferences trump stated preferences.

https://www.livescience.com/58607-me...rsonality.html

If two people are reporting on an event that occurred ten years ago, and one is absolutely certain about the tiniest details, while the another person admits it happened awhile ago so she can only report how she remembers it, all other things being equal, I'm inclined to find the latter more credible.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 01:22 AM   #210
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,811
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
...If two people are reporting on an event that occurred ten years ago, and one is absolutely certain about the tiniest details, while the another person admits it happened awhile ago so she can only report how she remembers it, all other things being equal, I'm inclined to find the latter more credible.

What if the former is Marilu Henner, what then?
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 03:46 AM   #211
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,179
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I mean, it was literally toxic.

Also, poison is a great weapon for people who can't rely on a statistical advantage in upper body strength.

Second only to handguns, probably.
What a zinger, guns take less upper body strength than poison.

You know things have gotten partisan when the bar for wit is any half related statement as long as it kind of vaguely sounds acerbic.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 03:59 AM   #212
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,457
I love the importance that right-wingers in this forum seem to attach to upper-body strength. I'm surprised that they find the time to put down the dumbbells to post ...
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 04:30 AM   #213
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
You want to throw away all the data from OKcupid on account of it not being representative, but you think that your sample from your life is representative? You also don't think it's possible that you've received biased reporting from the women you know (what I mean is that it's not clear that they would say that had settled if they had)?

It's not clear to me either way, but I just think you're dismissing Delvo's viewpoint based on a lack of evidence when the evidence for your viewpoint is equally lacking (or even more so).
The internal okcupid data isn't merely not representative of the larger population, but it wasn't even evaluating the same thing being discussed. Who you rate as beautiful in a photo is not the same as who you're attracted to in person when socializing. Not for women, at least.



Quote:
Thanks, I hadn't actually read the study, based on that quote I think I should do so before commenting further. It seemed to me that you were dismissing the possibility that insight into what women find physically attractive couldn't add any insight into who they would be interested in in a long term relationship, whereas I think that while there are clearly other factors, that is one factor.

It is a factor, particularly in the sense of people being picky about certain physical things.

Quote:
However, I think you are making a stronger case that the porn study doesn't actually offer insight into what women find physically attractive.

That seems reasonable, so as I said I'll have to check out the study.
Yeah, that's all I was saying.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 27th January 2019 at 04:43 AM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 04:38 AM   #214
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Women are generally better than men at multi-tasking, but you seem to get confused easily. These points about looks and sexual arousal are separate. One was never intended to support the other. The common narrative thread is self-deception.
You seem desperate to be able to claim to understand women more than women themselves do. That's your choice, I guess.
There was no self-deception revealed in the NYT article/study. Women having a physical reaction to watching bonobos having sex doesn't mean they quietly want to have sex with the bonobos and are in denial.

Quote:
You know, because you two are squawking about how attracted you are to a lesbian comedian and Hannibal Lecter, and you're able to deftly bracket out fame/wealth/social status. I'm sorry that observed preferences trump stated preferences.

https://www.livescience.com/58607-me...rsonality.html
Clickbait headline that doesn't match the article's content. It says:

Quote:
Even if a guy has a great personality, a woman looking for a date still hopes he's at least a little cute, a new study suggests.
Nobody's argued with that, and it doesn't support your "I know how women think better than they themselves do" position.


Quote:
If two people are reporting on an event that occurred ten years ago, and one is absolutely certain about the tiniest details, while the another person admits it happened awhile ago so she can only report how she remembers it, all other things being equal, I'm inclined to find the latter more credible.
In this case, I'm reporting on an ongoing event I experience every day of my life, and you're having to guess, and trying to support the guess with off topic statistics.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 27th January 2019 at 04:41 AM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 08:14 AM   #215
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
 
Magrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lancre Kingdom/Adirondack Mountain Region, NY
Posts: 4,181
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Sure.



Please, do not get into the semantic wanking. It oozes desperation. For every general rule, there are exceptions. The comment was to imply that you were part of the minority, yet you went ahead and inferred that you're "the one." Please.
I have reread my post several times and cannot for the life of me see where you got such nonsense. I stated you were wrong and cited an example. I can site any number of others that aren't related to myself. Please respond to what is actually written, it makes conversation much better.
__________________
Non ergo nothi tere vos usque.

Magrat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 08:15 AM   #216
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
 
Magrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lancre Kingdom/Adirondack Mountain Region, NY
Posts: 4,181
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Yes, there are gold digging women out there, and there are lying women, but that has nothing to do with the fact that most women are not choosing their mates based on how hot those men would look in a porn.

What pushes buttons in porn for women is a whole 'nother universe. It's not relevant to the topics at hand at all.
__________________
Non ergo nothi tere vos usque.

Magrat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 09:37 AM   #217
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,440
This has gone way off topic but Iíve got to agree that itís extremely common for women to be pleased with (not settling for) relationships with sufficiently rather than efficiently sexy guys. Most women donít really get that much of a kick out of being turned on all day every day. Many women are turned on by things they donít actually particularly want. Most women, as far as I can tell, basically just want to get turned on when they feel like it, and the partner they go for will be someone sufficient for that.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 11:15 AM   #218
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,582
Originally Posted by Magrat View Post
I have reread my post several times and cannot for the life of me see where you got such nonsense. I stated you were wrong and cited an example. I can site any number of others that aren't related to myself. Please respond to what is actually written, it makes conversation much better.
You're really bad at this, and celebrating another user who is also a poor debater is meaningless. The claim was that women lie to themselves. The example you "cited' was your personal opinion -- "no, I really, really would **** Anthony Hopkins, even if he weren't rich and famous." I've stated that I frankly have my doubts, but what you can't seem to comprehend is that even if were true, it wouldn't undermine the original claim.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 11:20 AM   #219
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,582
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
You seem desperate to be able to claim to understand women more than women themselves do. That's your choice, I guess.
This is just foolish. If 94% of university professors claim to be better at their job than their colleagues, or the majority of people claim to be better than average driver, or one of fifth of the public claims to be in the top 1% of income, am I suggesting that I know more about professors, drivers, and personal finances than the people themselves?

Quote:
There was no self-deception revealed in the NYT article/study. Women having a physical reaction to watching bonobos having sex doesn't mean they quietly want to have sex with the bonobos and are in denial.
Again, there's a divergence between what arouses them and what they think arouses them.

Quote:
Clickbait headline that doesn't match the article's content. It says:

Nobody's argued with that, and it doesn't support your "I know how women think better than they themselves do" position.
Weak. You don't like the headline, so you've plucked one sentence and called it representative. Look deeper: "The study suggests that women value physical attractiveness in a potential mate far more than they say they do, said study author Madeleine FugŤre."

Quote:
In this case, I'm reporting on an ongoing event I experience every day of my life, and you're having to guess, and trying to support the guess with off topic statistics.
My goodness, you're incredibly dense. The point is about humbleness -- admitting that one can be an unreliable witness. People genuinely believe their own children are smarter and better looking.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 11:58 AM   #220
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
This is just foolish. If 94% of university professors claim to be better at their job than their colleagues, or the majority of people claim to be better than average driver, or one of fifth of the public claims to be in the top 1% of income, am I suggesting that I know more about professors, drivers, and personal finances than the people themselves?
That sentence is gibberish and indeed foolish.

If what you meant to say was "Am I claiming to know more about professors than they themselves do if I note that it's impossible that the 94% of professors claiming to be better than average at their jobs can't all be correct?" then of course not, but that's just a non sequitur.

Quote:
Again, there's a divergence between what arouses them and what they think arouses them.
Not really. Most women are aware of the fact that weird stuff they don't actually want is sometimes erotic to them.



Quote:
Weak. You don't like the headline, so you've plucked one sentence and called it representative. Look deeper: "The study suggests that women value physical attractiveness in a potential mate far more than they say they do, said study author Madeleine FugŤre."
Have you looked deep enough into the study to see that it's just a test of women looking at profiles with pics...where nothing besides photo appearance can even be evaluated with any degree of accuracy?

Also:
https://www.timsquirrell.com/blog/20...-than-anything
Quote:
The experimental design is an issue. They gave their subjects photos of men, and then told them that those men were being paired with particular personality traits. They had a very strong visual stimulus in front of them, and then a very weak narrative stimulus: that is, they knew precisely what dating that person would entail from an aesthetic perspective, but extremely little about what their personality traits would mean in practical terms. Of course theyíre going to prioritise physical attractiveness over what are relatively nebulous descriptions of someoneís character, when the images are right in front of them.
Quote:
This is, in short, an incredibly artificial environment which shouldnít be relied upon to produce robust results which indicate peopleís real preferences.

Yes, we can probably conclude that looks were more important to the women in this study than they thought they would be. But the issue here is that they were first asked whether looks or personality were more important, without anything in front of them, and then they were given the photos and descriptions. Thatís an issue for the reasons stated above: you simply canít extrapolate this out to say that women in general underestimate how important looks are to them in general.
Also relevant!

Quote:
What does this mean for the blackpill?

In order for the blackpill to be correct here, all women in all circumstances would have to judge all men primarily by their looks, and in particular they would have to have a minimum threshold for attractiveness, below which they will not consider dating a man. Whilst I donít want to become par of the brigade that tells incels to take a shower, get some dress sense, and go to the gym, it does bear repeating that attractiveness is not something that is set in stone. There are a lot of things one can do to play up to existing societal standards for attractiveness that can compensate for features that might, unfortunately, be discriminated against.

Now, a blackpilled response to this would say: no, Tim, youíre wrong (and probably a cuck). Facial attractiveness is objective and universal, and moreover it dominates all other forms of attractiveness. If you donít have a good face, itís over.

Well, my dear incel friend, thatís an argument that will have to wait until another day. Until then: itís not over.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 11:59 AM   #221
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,811
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
This is just foolish. If 94% of university professors claim to be better at their job than their colleagues, or the majority of people claim to be better than average driver, or one of fifth of the public claims to be in the top 1% of income, am I suggesting that I know more about professors, drivers, and personal finances than the people themselves?



Again, there's a divergence between what arouses them and what they think arouses them.



Weak. You don't like the headline, so you've plucked one sentence and called it representative. Look deeper: "The study suggests that women value physical attractiveness in a potential mate far more than they say they do, said study author Madeleine FugŤre."



My goodness, you're incredibly dense. The point is about humbleness -- admitting that one can be an unreliable witness. People genuinely believe their own children are smarter and better looking.
Have we decided whether any of these traits are toxic or nontoxic? Just trying to bring this thread back on topic.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 12:53 PM   #222
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31,588
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
What a zinger, guns take less upper body strength than poison.
Oh gosh. No, not at all. A handgun is heavier than a phial of poison, but also delivers a lot more "bang for the buck", so to speak.

Quote:
You know things have gotten partisan when the bar for wit is any half related statement as long as it kind of vaguely sounds acerbic.
You're telling me!
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 01:31 PM   #223
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
This has gone way off topic but Iíve got to agree that itís extremely common for women to be pleased with (not settling for) relationships with sufficiently rather than efficiently sexy guys. Most women donít really get that much of a kick out of being turned on all day every day. Many women are turned on by things they donít actually particularly want. Most women, as far as I can tell, basically just want to get turned on when they feel like it, and the partner they go for will be someone sufficient for that.
And then there's the fact that for many/most women, it's possible to objectively evaluate them as being as beautiful/handsome/attractive as possible, but there's just no sexual "spark" between the two of you.

I dated one guy who was extremely "handsome" by traditional metrics, but kissing him completely creeped me out for some reason, like I was kissing a cousin or something.

There's another guy who I probably would not have rated all that highly just looking at photographs, but who I totally, over-the-top lusted after when in his presence, on par with a cat in heat.

I figure it probably has something to do with this (in addition to personality features that can only be evaluated via in-depth, prolonged contact):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_...xual_selection
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 02:54 PM   #224
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,582
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
That sentence is gibberish and indeed foolish.

If what you meant to say was "Am I claiming to know more about professors than they themselves do if I note that it's impossible that the 94% of professors claiming to be better than average at their jobs can't all be correct?" then of course not, but that's just a non sequitur.
Here's yet another paragraph of yours that would not exist if it ever needed to rationally justify itself. Where's the roll eyes emoticon?

Quote:
Not really. Most women are aware of the fact that weird stuff they don't actually want is sometimes erotic to them.
I agree that most women are aware they can get turned on by unexpectedly weird stuff, and yet they're still mistaken about what turns them on.

Quote:
Have you looked deep enough into the study to see that it's just a test of women looking at profiles with pics...where nothing besides photo appearance can even be evaluated with any degree of accuracy?
This is kind of like Trump when he says people don't know Lincoln was a Republican when what he's really saying is that he didn't know. Also, I have to smile when you say nothing besides the photo can be evaluated with any degree of accuracy. As if photos are not manipulated, from angles and lighting to editing in post.

Quote:
I am relieved you outsourced your criticisms to a third party, as he probably makes better points than you could ever summon. A couple of problems though. I am not claiming this one study is the be-all-end-all. It's just another piece of evidence, one of that compares favorably to lusting after a shorter, fatter Elton John. The same goes for the blog post Delvo cited.

Quote:
The experimental design is an issue. They gave their subjects photos of men, and then told them that those men were being paired with particular personality traits. They had a very strong visual stimulus in front of them, and then a very weak narrative stimulus: that is, they knew precisely what dating that person would entail from an aesthetic perspective, but extremely little about what their personality traits would mean in practical terms.
As opposed to real-life where we know a person's biographical details by allowing our eyes to hover over their visage. Of course the environment is going to matter. Never mind the self-selected people who go to bars and night clubs, I would expect shorter, less attractive men (even with great personalities) to typically have less success. I would expect them to do relatively better in a graduate seminar, where the same group consistently meet over time (note: this is different than the party where you see Patton Oswalt across the room being totally "moral" when he weighs in on Star Wars and all of the rejoicing on the planet of the teddy bears).

It's also amusing how you're happy to contend (via a proxy) that people are overwhelmed by a person's physical beauty in this study's environment, but you're perfectly capable of bracketing out Oswalt's fame/wealth/status. You just know you'd love tubby because he's soooooo smart. One famous comedian has said that theater shows are "a layup" because "you're getting a standing ovation before you even come out on stage." He compares playing small comedy clubs to "going to the gym" because people at the venue might not know who you are. In real life it's more extreme; they're not "on" in personal interactions. The stage is a different environment.

Quote:
you simply canít extrapolate this out to say that women in general underestimate how important looks are to them in general.
Of course you can, but with reservations. No one's claiming people will behave exactly the same way. Also, appearance will affect how we understand someone's personality (good looking people are generally considered more trustworthy). In my experience, women are quicker to infer personality traits from appearance.

Tim's hypothetical conversation with an imaginary straw incel and this "blackpill" stuff is not actually relevant (or "relevant!").
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 03:29 PM   #225
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Tim's hypothetical conversation with an imaginary straw incel and this "blackpill" stuff is not actually relevant (or "relevant!").
Oh, mon chťri, it is. We are well into the realm of The Blackpill Theory of Human Femoid Sexuality with this stuff.

Quote:
You just know you'd love tubby because he's soooooo smart
I probably wouldn't, just because I'm 5'8", and I've never been able to feel like anything but a sasquatch when trying to date men significantly shorter than myself.

But I've never, ever known a guy who was a 10/10 in all things personality who was unable to find love because of how he looked. And I have known a lot of "objectively" fugly dudes.

Quote:
I agree that most women are aware they can get turned on by unexpectedly weird stuff, and yet they're still mistaken about what turns them on.
Because it's random, and so? What part of "Just because a woman experiences low level arousal upon viewing that, does not mean they want to actually engage in it or base sexual behavior choices upon it" is not computing for you?

Know what women do base actual sexual activity choices upon? This is going to blow your mind, but it's...what we say we do. Straight women actually have sex with dudes, not bonobos and other women doing exercises.

Quote:
Also, I have to smile when you say nothing besides the photo can be evaluated with any degree of accuracy. As if photos are not manipulated, from angles and lighting to editing in post.
I said "with any degree of accuracy", not "with perfect accuracy." A photo is a hell of a lot more accurate than someone's self-report about their own intelligence and personality.

Quote:
Never mind the self-selected people who go to bars and night clubs, I would expect shorter, less attractive men (even with great personalities) to typically have less success. I would expect them to do relatively better in a graduate seminar, where the same group consistently meet over time
I've never actually known people who regularly go to bars to find people to date. Most people meet others through mutual friends and acquaintances around here.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 04:08 PM   #226
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 915
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Most women are aware of the fact that weird stuff they don't actually want is sometimes erotic to them.

Agreed.

But why limit this just to women? Men consume all manner of weird porn; surely no one thinks most people actually want to translate all of that into real-life 'action'?

For that matter, why limit this to porn and sex? People enjoy all kinds of fiction, and are often thrilled and/or moved and/or inspired by fictional narratives. Surely no one believes that these people necessarily want to do these things themselves?

Sure, there's some overlap, absolutely. Sometimes we enjoy reading about stuff that we might actually enjoy doing. But I suggest that such instances aren't typical, not if you're an avid consumer of fiction. I suggest that most fictional situations are enjoyed by most (sane) people simply as fiction, and nothing more.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 04:15 PM   #227
Hevneren
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 181
Originally Posted by novaphile View Post
erm... That's dangerously close to the "exception proves the rule" nonsense.

The exception demonstrates that the rule is incorrect.
It isn't nonsense, only when it's misunderstood.

Imagine an archaelogist in the future discovering an old Monopoly game. The rule booklet is missing, but he finds the card saying "GO TO JAIL: Go directly to Jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.". This is clearly an exception to a rule which says that one collects $200 on passing Go, even if the booklet stating the rule has been lost. So the exceptions proves the existence of the rule.

If I remember correctly, the concept is known from Roman contract law.
Hevneren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 04:16 PM   #228
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
 
Magrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lancre Kingdom/Adirondack Mountain Region, NY
Posts: 4,181
I ask again how internet relationships could be possible if personality wasn't the primary draw. Not eHarmony dating sites, but like me and Rincewind. Millions of people like us meet online and marry. Personality is all you have to go on.

And I'll point out again that looks change. If love were all about looks nobody would stay married for fifty years when youve both turned into a troll doll.
__________________
Non ergo nothi tere vos usque.


Last edited by Magrat; 27th January 2019 at 04:18 PM.
Magrat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 04:18 PM   #229
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Agreed.

But why limit this just to women? Men consume all manner of weird porn; surely no one thinks most people actually want to translate all of that into real-life 'action'?

For that matter, why limit this to porn and sex? People enjoy all kinds of fiction, and are often thrilled and/or moved and/or inspired by fictional narratives. Surely no one believes that these people necessarily want to do these things themselves?

Sure, there's some overlap, absolutely. Sometimes we enjoy reading about stuff that we might actually enjoy doing. But I suggest that such instances aren't typical, not if you're an avid consumer of fiction. I suggest that most fictional situations are enjoyed by most (sane) people simply as fiction, and nothing more.
No argument from me there, but just to remind every one, the "women watching bonobos have sex" link was brought in to back the idea/claim that women are lying to themselves and everyone else about what they actually, really want.

It's also worth noting that the article says men actually did only physically respond in a self-predictable way. Straight men only responded to video of straight sex, and gay men to gay male sex.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 04:20 PM   #230
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
 
Magrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lancre Kingdom/Adirondack Mountain Region, NY
Posts: 4,181
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Agreed.

But why limit this just to women? Men consume all manner of weird porn; surely no one thinks most people actually want to translate all of that into real-life 'action'?

For that matter, why limit this to porn and sex? People enjoy all kinds of fiction, and are often thrilled and/or moved and/or inspired by fictional narratives. Surely no one believes that these people necessarily want to do these things themselves?

Sure, there's some overlap, absolutely. Sometimes we enjoy reading about stuff that we might actually enjoy doing. But I suggest that such instances aren't typical, not if you're an avid consumer of fiction. I suggest that most fictional situations are enjoyed by most (sane) people simply as fiction, and nothing more.
A lot of vanilla women out there drooling over 50 Shades of Grey! Fantasy is just that.... I agree with your points here.
__________________
Non ergo nothi tere vos usque.

Magrat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 04:20 PM   #231
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Magrat View Post
I ask again how internet relationships could be possible if personality wasn't the primary draw. Not eHarmony dating sites, but like me and Rincewind. Millions of people like us meet online and marry. Personality is all you have to go on.

And I'll point out again that looks change. If love were all about looks nobody would stay married for fifty years when youve both turned into a troll doll.
Since we're in blackpill territory, I think the idea is that love isn't real, and old married couples are all just "settling", because if they had the choice, they'd all leave their life partners for 20-something year old hotties.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 27th January 2019 at 04:21 PM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 04:23 PM   #232
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
 
Magrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lancre Kingdom/Adirondack Mountain Region, NY
Posts: 4,181
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Since we're in blackpill territory, I think the idea is that love isn't real, and old married couples are all just "settling", because if they had the choice, they'd all leave their life partners for 20-something year old hotties.
My fat cripple ass couldn't keep up with a 20 something lol

I am enjoying seeing a man tell women they're wrong about what they want/feel/think. Talk about mansplaning.
__________________
Non ergo nothi tere vos usque.

Magrat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 04:28 PM   #233
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Magrat View Post
I am enjoying seeing a man tell women they're wrong about what they want/feel/think.
But they have science on their side!

lol
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 04:30 PM   #234
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
 
Magrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lancre Kingdom/Adirondack Mountain Region, NY
Posts: 4,181
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
But they have science on their side!

lol
Instead of asking the women here at his disposal what we want... it would be frustrating if it wasn't so ridiculous.
__________________
Non ergo nothi tere vos usque.

Magrat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 04:40 PM   #235
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Magrat View Post
Instead of asking the women here at his disposal what we want... it would be frustrating if it wasn't so ridiculous.
Must be "self-deluded liars"!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Screenshot 2019-01-27 at 5.41.19 PM.jpg (24.2 KB, 3 views)
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 04:45 PM   #236
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 915
Originally Posted by Magrat View Post
I ask again how internet relationships could be possible if personality wasn't the primary draw. Not eHarmony dating sites, but like me and Rincewind. Millions of people like us meet online and marry. Personality is all you have to go on.
This is off-topic, but I'm curious. How does this gel with sexual orientation?

Might it be that personality is somehow intrinsically linked with sex (that is, gender)? Or might it be that sexual orientation is more on-the-surface than we tend to believe?
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 05:20 PM   #237
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
 
Magrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lancre Kingdom/Adirondack Mountain Region, NY
Posts: 4,181
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
This is off-topic, but I'm curious. How does this gel with sexual orientation?

Might it be that personality is somehow intrinsically linked with sex (that is, gender)? Or might it be that sexual orientation is more on-the-surface than we tend to believe?
Personally, I can only conjecture. I would guess that the relationship builds until the point when the genders are revealed. At that point the individuals would either choose to continue it and revisit their sexual identity, or to be friends.
__________________
Non ergo nothi tere vos usque.

Magrat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 05:22 PM   #238
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
 
Magrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lancre Kingdom/Adirondack Mountain Region, NY
Posts: 4,181
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Must be "self-deluded liars"!
I love that meme lol

I definitely did not settle for my husband. I adore him. I don't deserve him, and he could definitely do better than me. He is my best friend we as he says, we are weirdly similar and similarly weird. He is 30 years older than I am. people say to me, how do you have stuff in common with someone so much older? Nerd is timeless.
__________________
Non ergo nothi tere vos usque.

Magrat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 05:48 PM   #239
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 915
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
No argument from me there, but just to remind every one, the "women watching bonobos have sex" link was brought in to back the idea/claim that women are lying to themselves and everyone else about what they actually, really want.

I didn't see that bit. Still haven't. I only read this portion, and touched on what piqued my interest.

Sure, I agree, if that is what had been said, then it's a pretty weird POV.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th January 2019, 06:00 PM   #240
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,440
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
And then there's the fact that for many/most women, it's possible to objectively evaluate them as being as beautiful/handsome/attractive as possible, but there's just no sexual "spark" between the two of you.

I dated one guy who was extremely "handsome" by traditional metrics, but kissing him completely creeped me out for some reason, like I was kissing a cousin or something.
Ah, that’s usually cause he’s really a close relative of yours, visiting from the future.

But yeah, aesthetically pleasing does not necessarily equal sexually attractive. Conversely, looking a bit like a potato does not necessarily preclude being sexually attractive. Some people just happen to have the right kind of magnetic field for your pole.

ETA: Also agree that guys need to be given the same cred as far as sometimes being turned on by things they don’t want in real life or at all.

Last edited by Lithrael; 27th January 2019 at 06:03 PM.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:14 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.