Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

So You’re Not Desirable

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 140 posts

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#71

Post by makomk »

curiouslurker wrote: post #18
luckychild305 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can genuinely recommend you to read 'the game'. Don't get deterred by what people might tell you about it, especially people who have not ready it. It was eye opening to me that it's in your complete control to show people (not only girls, really anybody) your uniqueness, and that you can literally meet dozens of people every week and must not rely on office environment or random coincidence.

"The Game" is only useful in making one realize that attracting women is a learnable skill. I was a big fan for a time but now realize much of what it recommends is like snake oil. I recommend going through David Deangelo's later material (2009+) and also Michael The Wizard. Deangelo's early work made it into "The Game" but even he realized with years of experience that there is a better way (Of course he made tens o…

Also, unfortunately a lot of PUA stuff seems to revolve around convincing men that there is an objective standard of beauty in women that all other men are chasing too, and structuring their interaction with women in ways that stop their personal judgement from diverging from that consensus.

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#72

Post by nailer »

Udo wrote: post #69
Dewie wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being rich is an inner value? I have the impression that how much being rich has to do with your own will is still not decided. If anything, social mobility has been shown to be very overrated in recent years. And then one can ask, how much did that one person striking millions have to do with ingenuity, and how much was it just being at the right place and time (lucking out)? One could say that, 'in a very real sens…

> Being rich is an inner value? Being successful is, and being rich is one of the markers for success. I had problems with this view as well until it was explained to me from a woman's perspective. The operating assumption being, as I said earlier, that men and women use different heuristics to do preliminary mate filtering. By and large, you get through the filter by being beautiful as a woman, and by projecting suc…

There's no 'moral' right or wrong either way - both are biological indicators.

Women often look for men who can provide for their children, and who are capable of producing sexually successful offspring. In violent climates, physically strong men are valued more than financially strong men as that's what's required to protect offspring.

Men often look for women who are fertile and healthy.

In both cases, market value is simply a partner who's capable of carrying on one's genes.

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#73

Post by Dewie »

Udo wrote: post #69
Dewie wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being rich is an inner value? I have the impression that how much being rich has to do with your own will is still not decided. If anything, social mobility has been shown to be very overrated in recent years. And then one can ask, how much did that one person striking millions have to do with ingenuity, and how much was it just being at the right place and time (lucking out)? One could say that, 'in a very real sens…

> Being rich is an inner value? Being successful is, and being rich is one of the markers for success. I had problems with this view as well until it was explained to me from a woman's perspective. The operating assumption being, as I said earlier, that men and women use different heuristics to do preliminary mate filtering. By and large, you get through the filter by being beautiful as a woman, and by projecting suc…

> I had problems with this view as well until it was explained to me from a woman's perspective. The operating assumption being, as I said earlier, that men and women use different heuristics to do preliminary mate filtering. By and large, you get through the filter by being beautiful as a woman, and by projecting success as a man. The argument goes that beauty has absolutely nothing to do with inner values, while success does (false positives not withstanding).

Is this supposed to be novel concepts to me, things that I have "problems" with? I am questioning the assumption that being rich is wholly a matter of will and inner values, I am not questioning what women like or dislike.

"I had problems with this view as well until ..." - I don't have "issues" or hang-ups with this opinion, neither is it too hard for me to understand.

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#74

Post by Udo »

Dewie wrote: post #73
Udo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being rich is an inner value? Being successful is, and being rich is one of the markers for success. I had problems with this view as well until it was explained to me from a woman's perspective. The operating assumption being, as I said earlier, that men and women use different heuristics to do preliminary mate filtering. By and large, you get through the filter by being beautiful as a woman, and by projecting suc…

> I had problems with this view as well until it was explained to me from a woman's perspective. The operating assumption being, as I said earlier, that men and women use different heuristics to do preliminary mate filtering. By and large, you get through the filter by being beautiful as a woman, and by projecting success as a man. The argument goes that beauty has absolutely nothing to do with inner values, while su…

That sounds pretty hostile, and I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#75

Post by rm445 »

KoalaOnesie wrote: post #44
hypron wrote: post #4

>In a related study of approximately 350 heterosexual individuals, we collected these same measures in networks of opposite-sex friends, acquaintances and partners. Among these well-acquainted individuals, consensus on measures of mate value was nearly zero. These are the people who know what authors you like, what you wore for Halloween six years ago and what obscure movie you will quote the next time you all get to…

The concept of "friend zone" might resonate with more people if it wasn't always a straight man remonstrating about a woman who won't reciprocate his politeness with sex. This article is more about people who take time to fall in love, well, taking time to fall in love, regardless of their gender.

Not everything has to be symmetrical. The phenomenon as people observe it primarily occurs with a young man doting on a woman.

Mentioning the age of the participants: it seems to be a set of unhelpful behaviours that the guys eventually grow out of.

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#76

Post by Dewie »

HeyImAlex wrote: post #35
Exenith wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty fucking rash to say that an attempt to impress someone is equivalent to objectification and sexism. It might reflect an inability to accept rejection, but I would hardly compare it to subhuman treatment (which is what objectification means -- treating someone without regard to their humanity). I sincerely hope this trend of reducing every male behaviour to sexism strangles itself.

I think you can find objectification at the root of anger and bitterness associated with the friend zone (which is often how I see the term used; the girl "puts you" in the friend zone after all). "But I'm so perfect for her, why can't she just seeeee" does show a disregard for the humanity of the admired; women are allowed to have opinions, and hitting all of the imaginary checkboxes on what make you perfect for her…

Rejection sucks some times, and bitterness and blame is one way to cope with it (and hopefully it is only temporary, and you don't take it out on anyone). Bitterness often manifests itself as unfairly blaming the other party. These are emotions, the words and opinions that they evoke don't necessarily have any rational basis.

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#77

Post by Dewie »

Udo wrote: post #74
Dewie wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I had problems with this view as well until it was explained to me from a woman's perspective. The operating assumption being, as I said earlier, that men and women use different heuristics to do preliminary mate filtering. By and large, you get through the filter by being beautiful as a woman, and by projecting success as a man. The argument goes that beauty has absolutely nothing to do with inner values, while su…

That sounds pretty hostile, and I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to say.

I don't really see what there is to misunderstand.

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#78

Post by quasque »

greggman wrote: post #12

I'm not sure how this is helpful. I've known I'm personally more attracted to personality than looks. That's not the problem. The problem is it's hard (at least for me) to get the opportunity to be around members of the opposite sex long enough for them to see my "uniqueness" Personal examples. My last job of 5 years had 100 people on my floor only 2 of which were women. My friends are generally all geeks who have no…

That sounds like a painfully abnormal work environment. Not even considering dating opportunities here - spending most of your waking time in an almost entirely male domain for so many years seems torturous, like some kind of prison experience.

Maybe it's time to look for a different job, with a more gender-balanced workforce? Five years is a long time to work in one place anyway.

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#79

Post by BugBrother »

Udo wrote: post #63

The article makes a good case for "when they get to know you, some of them will fall for you." When I was still young and at least somewhat cute, I remarked to a friend how depressing it was that women always go for rich and arrogant men. My friend's reply absolutely changed my perspective on this: by choosing socially well-accepted and successful men they actually place a lot more emphasis on the inner values than m…

I have to put in another viewpoint here.

How a woman looks decide who I [try to] talk to, but a good sense of humor, intelligence and cool personality will change my "target" quickly.

From what I've seen, this is not unusual for men. (And probably the same goes for women too, I wish I had anecdotal evidence that my "good" sense of humor worked wonders. :-) )

Edit: Other people below said similar things.

Edit 2: How large percentage of relationships (in small/big cities) starts with people you meet online, these days? Is the article relevant?

Edit 3: As a clarification [and answer to removed(/reinserted?) comment]. I reacted to "Contrast that with male perception, if you think a girl is attractive, everything she says suddenly sounds meaningful and important.". It is too much of a simplification. Attraction to women can come from other things than eyes.

A couple of examples:

- I was crazy over a woman that was far from pretty while ignoring a cool woman. (She dumped me after a year, sigh.) Her (irritated) old time friends said she always had a tail of guys.

- I ended up weirdly on a date with a fat woman a while ago, which I realized that we had both misunderstood -- she was way out of my league in "mate value" (I realized that early in the dinner, so I spent the time asking about her really cool work and previous jobs).

This is not common (large "mate value" for women not based on looks but personality, intelligence and so on), but do exist. (And can also be quite obvious, not after knowing someone for months/years.)

Re: So You’re Not Desirable

#80

Post by cpr »

Dewie wrote: post #68
RodericDay wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Always good to keep in mind when this kinda "evo-psych" stuff is brought up: http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/2010/06/30/mr-10-09/

evo-psych needs studies? It seems more that the armchair evo-psych people have just decided on a set of axioms beforehand that sound sufficiently "common sense" and are making deductions based on that.

Evo-* people have always pretty much relied on "just-so" stories. Evolutionary biologists who claim that feathers evolved from scales by snakes jumping off trees for millions of years are falling into the same trap.
Post reply on HN