Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Attraction
-
25-04-2010 11:37am#1
Comments
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59102
Biological triggers(hip waist ratio/symmetry/etc) + culture(what the culture finds attractive) + attraction history(opposite(or same) sex attachments in childhood) + availability(people tend to go for people of equal attractiveness) = attraction ?poisonated wrote: »If attraction varies between cultures. How do we begin to find someone attractive...(if that makes sense). Can we teach ourselves to find someone attractive?
Yea I lolled at the pickup artist stuff myself
. Though if one could avoid the BS could it have some sociological/psychological value because of its popularity? Lots of men are buying into it and a huge resource of experience is out there where these men report on success or failure. Of course self reporting is highly dubious, but I have wondered if some useful data might come out of it underneath the noise and BS? Even if it's just showing a social disconnect with a lot of men. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Biological triggers(hip waist ratio/symmetry/etc) + culture(what the culture finds attractive) + attraction history(opposite(or same) sex attachments in childhood) + availability(people tend to go for people of equal attractiveness) = attraction ?
Pretty much, I'd agree, though not my area of expertise. I'd say that people may go for more attractive people but tend to end up with those of equal attractiveness. But that's just averages anyway and we all know of examples of couples where one is much more attractive than the other.Yea I lolled at the pickup artist stuff myself. Though if one could avoid the BS could it have some sociological/psychological value because of its popularity? Lots of men are buying into it and a huge resource of experience is out there where these men report on success or failure. Of course self reporting is highly dubious, but I have wondered if some useful data might come out of it underneath the noise and BS? Even if it's just showing a social disconnect with a lot of men.
Hmm. Well, I work with people who are socially isolated and often they are socially isolated because their social skills are almost non-existent. So we do a lot of teaching social skills. These pickup skills seem to me to give men the courage or confidence to get started on a relationship - but god help anyone who truely believes in them, because they are greatly lacking on the maintaining a relationship skills, or even seeing the opposite sex as human.
Nice to see you here Wibbs!0 -
There is a lot of BS but sometimes I wonder. Smoke and fire, that sort of thing. I've seen a few friends use the "moves" out and about a few times, seemed to work for them.Yea I lolled at the pickup artist stuff myself. Though if one could avoid the BS could it have some sociological/psychological value because of its popularity? Lots of men are buying into it and a huge resource of experience is out there where these men report on success or failure. Of course self reporting is highly dubious, but I have wondered if some useful data might come out of it underneath the noise and BS? Even if it's just showing a social disconnect with a lot of men.
JuliusCaesar, did you consider JuliaCaesar as a username option?
0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59102
Maybe as usual the outliers or apparent outliers are where its at interest wise? I recall reading studies where pictures of long term couples were taken and other people were asked to rate on just physical attractiveness. In most cases "10's" were with "10's" and "5's" with "5's" etc. When it went a bit sideways and more usually went sideways with say female "8's" were with male "4's" the social power of the man(usually but not always financial) was what raised his number. Interestingly where male 8's were with female 4's they didnt ask questions or seek answers.JuliusCaesar wrote: »Pretty much, I'd agree, though not my area of expertise. I'd say that people may go for more attractive people but tend to end up with those of equal attractiveness. But that's just averages anyway and we all know of examples of couples where one is much more attractive than the other.
Agreed 100%. It's the degree of social isolation that interests me as a layman. Ok you can have a person with severe social isolation and lack of social skills. Which must be truly crippling and bloody painful for a social animal like ourselves. They're at one end of the scale. At the "norm" we have relatively socially balanced individuals. What interests me is the low level social isolation.Hmm. Well, I work with people who are socially isolated and often they are socially isolated because their social skills are almost non-existent. So we do a lot of teaching social skills. These pickup skills seem to me to give men the courage or confidence to get started on a relationship - but god help anyone who truely believes in them, because they are greatly lacking on the maintaining a relationship skills, or even seeing the opposite sex as human.
IE kinda like not so much those people who are clinically depressed, but those who may have a low level depression that while debilitating, doesnt debilitate them enough to be recognised in everyday life. The undiagnosed and untreated people, often men in this case, that pass under the radar but may be, I dunno, missing out on living a life they deserve? Now I would be uncomfortable about the use of the words "undiagnosed" and "untreated", as for me anyway I would fear labels like that. More to the point the possible over medicalisation of that.
The popularity of this PUA meme and community indicates to me that there are a large number of otherwise "normal" men who may be fine in other aspects of life, but who feel in need of help in what should be one of the simpler aspects of life. Is it a low level issue? Is it just a male version of the Cosmo front page entitled "how to find the right man?". Or is it the emergence of some deeper psychological malaise?
I lurk quite a lotNice to see you here Wibbs!
The Freudians are thinking "ah ha!" the Jungians are thinking "yep figured that", the CBT'rs are thinking "Oh jesus, life's too short, think positive thoughts"..
Yea exactly Valmont. Some of this stuff does work. Sometimes counterintuitively. That's what interests me. OK the "You should give me your number" bit. Written down it sounds crass and overbearing, but among the PUA guff posted, that one is more likely to work IMHO and IME. Say it with a smile, not menace nor in an apologetic fashion and it will work better than "can I have your number".Valmont wrote:There is a lot of BS but sometimes I wonder. Smoke and fire, that sort of thing. I've seen a few friends use the "moves" out and about a few times, seemed to work for them.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
I learnt something from this thread...JuliusCaesar is a woman
If one were ever to do an experiment on the issue I'm 90% sure that the success of pick up artist techniques can be explained almost entirely by number of attempts. PUAs seem to hit on a very large amount of women, I reckon all the nonsense techniques are just that - nonsense - and that it is the number of women they talk to / chat up / ask out that accounts for any success they have.0 -
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59102
Like a phobic being desensitised by over exposure to the trigger? So the fear is lessened and the numbers go up. A good result is bound to follow. Even if the proscribed PUA technique(tm) is utterly daft. Women make up 50% of the population and 100% of the target group. So even the daftest approach is bound to succeed over time and numbers involved.JuliusCaesar wrote: »Albert Ellis (the originator of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy) overcame his fear by asking 100 women out.
Well I knew and I was just lurking(I'm a bit intruiged at the reaction to the 'revelation' of my gender....what's that got to do with anything? And does it change the way I'm regarded here?)
:D But it must have some effect? For a good while quite a few thought I was a woman(check the boards wiki on me and I still am ). When it was clear I wasnt, some at least regarded me differently. Which did interest me TBH. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59102
Yea that would be an interesting area to look at. When people can wipe the social slate clean as it were, what decisions they make at that point could prove interesting as I say.More interestingly, I wonder is there any or much research done on username choice online?
Grrr :mad:edit: I thought Wibbs was a woman for a very long time.. Perception is everything and without other cues online personas can confuse. On so many levels. Again I would say look at the outliers. The extreme may pave a better path to the middle. Why are some peoples personalities and genders confused with the reality kinda thing? In my case I think some got sidetracked because I seemed to know more about interpersonal relationships to a degree outside what was expected of being male. Or at least my focus came across more along those lines. Without other cues it was assumed that was a more feminine area of expertise? Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
The bolded point and your mod status in the ladies lounge were what I based my idea on; not that I ever read much of what is posted in there anyway. It's a funny thing really, having people mix up your gender. I wouldn't feel bad; at least it doesn't happen in real life!Grrr :mad:. Perception is everything and without other cues online personas can confuse. On so many levels. Again I would say look at the outliers. The extreme may pave a better path to the middle. Why are some peoples personalities and genders confused with the reality kinda thing? In my case I think some got sidetracked because I seemed to know more about interpersonal relationships to a degree outside what was expected of being male. Or at least my focus came across more along those lines. Without other cues it was assumed that was a more feminine area of expertise?0 -
-
-
Hell, scrap that last post.
This is attraction right here.
Females are insecure by nature. Males are secure and confident.
A female wants a male to provide her with this security by being with him - feeling she is "his" girl and thus drawing from the security and self assurance/confidence etc that he has.
Males want a girl to love, for companionship, so on.
In order for this to occur they must find her attractive - physically and as a person.
The more attractive/feminine she is, the happier he will be with her.
The more confident/self assured/etc -basically, the more security he can provide for her and the more secure she can feel wit him - the happier she will be with him.
It think this is demonstrated pretty well by looking at any couple
See the way the girl latches onto him - like she needs him for that security.
The guy is just happy to have a girl on his arm, for the companionship and whatnot.
**
Why you don't really see attractive guys with less attractive girls.
She knows that he's gonna be looking beyond her and so she can never really feel secure with him, never really draw from the security he has.
But you see less attractive guys with lovely girls quite a bit - cause she can be secure with him, at least to some degree, and he's delighted to have such a girl for companionship.
Think about it closely. This theory explains any number of things.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,174 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59102
Or PUA BS, or that notion that holds currency among the Oprah crowd that insecurity/security is the root of all social and psychological ills?Jake, maybe its your use of prejorative terms like 'insecure' that has me rankling, but I can't help thinking that you are borrowing an ideology developed 1900-1950.
I dunno TBH. Yes it seems logical, but IMHO similar to Jake LeMotta's ideas, I think it's too simplistic. IME its far more complex and fluid than that. I know very strong and capable women who seek out losers. Strong and capable women who seek to find men stronger than they. And of course women who look for an equal(the latter being the most dissappointed I've found, but for different reasons). I would say women and indeed men, will seek out those that trigger sexual attraction first and foremost, regardless of secondary traits or compatibility. Now that attraction may be based on compatibility and game ball if it is, but like I say I've found, more often than not its square peg in round hole that kinda works.In todays cultural norms, a capable, independent, successful woman is most likely to look for an equal partner. They are also more likely to shun the dominant paternalistic male if what they are clashes with the very essence of what he considers his masculinity.
+1000. Again it depends on the definitions of weaker and insecure and dominant. This changes with culture, age and the individual and social dynamic.Of course, there are many exceptions and varieties to this, however,
I think it fundamentally flawed to view women as somehow insecure in comparison to a suppossed security in men.
I think we have progressed enough in our understanding of emotional strength to see that women are no longer the 'weaker' sex.
They may not be alpha?Also, in terms of dominance/submissiveness, why is it that nearly every alpha male that I know of adores to be dominated sexually? In any case I personally have little truck with alpha beta etc in humans. Its hard enough to work out in other social animals never mind throwing our huge brains and culture into the mix. Its great shorthand for self help books, but beyond that? Not for me anyway. I look at our cousins the great apes and see how the "alpha" can be cuckolded on a regular basis. Given that the alpha status is all about reproductive success, the term even in more obvious settings can mean little enough. I'm reminded on that score of the habits of certain salmon as they mate. Male salmonids can be very territorial with gravid females. Sometimes a tiny male will sneak in between the "alpha" salmon and the female and unseen impregnate some of her eggs. Less energy expended in growth or fighting for position and yet still gets his DNA away. He wins, yet he's the runt of the litter. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Actually, scrap that last post.
Being alpha (strength) is the ability to maintain your presence of mind (composure, confidence) in any given situation/circumstance.
However, I believe being considerate, clever as well as strong, plays a large part in ones ability to do this.
i.e. Confronting an intimidating situation while maintain P.O.M.
e.g. dealing with an intimidating individual.
Conveying to a female you find her attractive, etc.
**
Further speculation:
1) Strength (alpha'ness..?) commands respect and is attractive.
Complete lack of it communicates disrespect and is repulsive, often to the extent where it inspires disgust and dislike - often with the intention to rid that person entirely from one's presence (human nature - eradicate the weak?)
2) The person who prevails in terms of alpha'ness
, will often be in a position where he/she can manipulate the situation with a means to their own ends.
e.g. The stronger guy can make the weaker guy succumb to his demands.
The male, in a case where he can maintain a greater presence of mind than the female, can... I dunno - score her, I guess.
3) The strength itself is derived from self belief, generated from overcoming particular challenges.
4) In a case where one individual feels his strength or alpha degree does not match up to anothers - they feel threatened or undermined by the superior alpha individual, he/she may be prone to insecurities and may make attempts to confront, attack or attenuate by some means and to some degree the person in question, as a means to relieving these insecurities.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
This perspective is paternalistic, and outdated in our postmodern, westernized world, especially with university educated women.
I would assume that the 150 million women in the US would be normally distributed between leading and following behavior in a relationship, with most falling towards the population mean; i.e., the mean approximating equality.
Case in point, there have been major demographic shifts in the United States in the past decades that demonstrate women are preparing themselves for leadership roles in business in greater numbers than men. For example, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, there are now more women enrolled in US university business degree programs than men. These university degree programs prepare them for professional and managerial positions, not clerical support positions.
Your referring specifically to the US. Recognized as the "land of dreams" - would be more accurately referred to as the "land of the weird and wonderful where anything can happen".
I doubt there's many other countries that could claim those figures.
Sure I'll believe those quotes as regards women taking a greater number of leadership roles.
There's a saying that's become pretty much synonymous with these "go-getter" american female types, and that's that they have achieved everything except femininity - just look at Sarah Palin!
Regardless, I'm making the point that women take the subservient role in a relationship. As far as their leadership roles in the work environment go - I don't see why the two are necessarily mutually exclusive?Is it coincidental that you used the term "projected" when continuing to insist on using the pejorative "bitch" metaphor?
Touche 0 -
Jake, I don't think you clearly state it in the above posts, can I ask where are you developing these theories from? What school of though are you basing these premises on?
Just personal experience generally.
As the metaphor goes "everyone wants the master".
They all loved me when I had that belt wrapped around my waist, but when Sugar Ray toppled me in our ultimate bout, all them nuthuggers just jumped off the bandwagon and I was just another Joe.
(Note to mods: Just to clarify, describing the experiences of my alias is simply a light hearted way of explaining my point - if it's a case where it's being misconstrued as trolling ) 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Jake LeMotta wrote: »Just personal experience generally.
As the metaphor goes "everyone wants the master".
They all loved me when I had that belt wrapped around my waist, but when Sugar Ray toppled me in our ultimate bout, all them nuthuggers just jumped off the bandwagon and I was just another Joe.
(Note to mods: Just to clarify, describing the experiences of my alias is simply a light hearted way of explaining my point - if it's a case where it's being misconstrued as trolling )
You using psychological language, I'm asking which modality are you taking your understanding of these concepts such as unsconscious, projection etc from?0 -
Also, in terms of dominance/submissiveness, why is it that nearly every alpha male that I know of adores to be dominated sexually?
Hmmm... I think there has been a confusion between being alpha and the projection of its persona.
I'm a huge combat sports fan, so forgive me for using these analogies, but Mike Tyson was a prime example.
Sure, he was an alpha male, amazing sportsman, but he projected this menacing presence as a means to accentuate his masculinity.
Oftentimes this is done with males as a means to compensate or cover up for something they feel is a shortcoming in their character - shortcomings in their masculinity effectively.
If anyone cares to, watch the Tyson Vs Louis bout. As the fight wears on (alot of Tysons bouts didn't go past the early rounds) notice the reduction in Tysons menacing demeanor and the effectively the emergence of the female aspect to his character - the aspect he attempts to cover up by projecting this menacing demeanor.
I'd like to elaborate more with this analogy but I know I'll just start rambling so I'll leave it there.
**
In reference to the above quote, these supposed alpha males - who I'm sure project a very macho persona, enjoy being dominated sexually; perhaps they enjoy endulging in this female side to their character in this situation as it is an aspect that they obviously attempt to strenuously repress in so many other situations.. ?
I'm sure Palins husband enjoys being sexually dominated.. sucks for him if he doesn't, cause I don't think he has choice.You using psychological language, I'm asking which modality are you taking your understanding of these concepts such as unsconscious, projection etc from?
There's a modality, which I'll attempt to explain shortly.0 -
-
-
-
-
You using psychological language, I'm asking which modality are you taking your understanding of these concepts such as unsconscious, projection etc from?
Actually, I'm just gonna run the risk of getting banned here and try and make an attempt to explain the school of thought that my opinions of projection are based on.
When we communicate, we do so on a conscious or subconscious/instinctual/intuitive level.
When one is communicating feelings, such as attraction, dislike etc, it is most effectively done through instinctual communication, as oppose to conscious - as conscious would lend itself to a conscious reaction i.e. possible confrontation/dismission etc.
This instinctual communication does not mean that we're not conscious of what were projecting, but just projecting it in such a way as it is interpreted on an instinctual level - that is, communicating our feelings in such a way as they are interpreted instinctively.
Example:
You want to convey to a girl you find her attractive.
You could look her in the eye and tell her straight up.
As this is conveyed and interpreted on an entirely conscious level, it is demanding to a certain degree and therefore awkward, leaves little scope for consideration of the proposition (as it puts one "on the spot" to a certain degree), and demands an immediate conscious response...
To communicate this on an instinctual level however, we convey it (signals expression, so forth) without making direct eye contact, but enough to show that you are consciously aware of that person none the less.
The mechanics of this and perhaps a more comprehensive explanation - I have made an attempt to explain my theory in the humanities forum.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055916607
Please feel free to ask if there is something you need clarified or expounded upon - hopefully not everything
**
There is another area; in the understanding of the actual conveyances and interaction - using a model similar to the trigonometric circle, I think we can gain a good understanding their mechanics, but I'll just wait to see how acceptable this post is before I try and explain my theory on that topic.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement