Dating for Nerds: A Shy Guy's Guide to Meeting Women

[DanP]

Eh?

...

What parts do you not understand ? I was asking how did you equated the "god's gift to women" crowd to a subset of "sociopath" crowd.

 

[Redbelly98]

Get professional help...seriously.

Mean! I mean if I'm understanding everything correctly, aren't we all here to give each other advice and help, not throw insults?

She was giving you advice, not insulting you.

 

[DanP]

Also, I think my own body language may be slightly not normal, maybe some are born differently in body posture and not expressive in facial expressions, so finding equations for how I'm supposed to move my face, body posture, etc in social situations may help me relax because I'd want them to look past that and at my personality instead.

Some ppl will never get laid. There is still hope for unicorns. See, even if I would point you a women which I know is 99% interested in you, you would manage to find that 1% somehow and blew it all. Thanks to the "equations"

 

[rolerbe]

Ahhh, those http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cold_Equations" .

Just eject the girl and the equations simplify nicely.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm not seeing how someone who believes they are god's gift to women is a sociopath either.

Because I defined it that way. I addressed, but then shunted aside, the conventional understanding of someone who thinks they are "God's Gift to Women," Then pulled a switcheroo, offering an "alternative" description of an alleged different sort of "God's Gift" , which was, in fact, culled from things I've read about sociopaths. Then the punchline: 3.) "It's a doomed quest: most guys like this are sociopaths."

I don't know what to tell you, Moonbear. That post was a witticism. Georgina grasped the gist of it. It's not intended to be accurate. It's intended to be true. The two sentences previous to this are another witticism. A witticism is "a cleverly witty and often biting or ironic remark"*. Because of the surprise "snapper" at the end that post actually ends up not being about "God's Gifts" or sociopaths at all, but an ironic and biting remark about girls being attracted to the wrong guys.



*Merriam-Websters

 

[zoobyshoe]

What parts do you not understand ? I was asking how did you equated the "god's gift to women" crowd to a subset of "sociopath" crowd.

Hmmm. If you're afraid I'm accusing you of being a sociopath because you recommended acting like God's gift to women, then rest assured I am not. I am not sure how you, DanP, would describe someone who acts like that, but I assume you would describe someone who is successful with women, and not obnoxious. The trouble you were having with Georgina stemmed from the fact that, when a woman describes a man as acting like God's Gift to women, it is a bad thing: he's too cocky, obnoxious about it, over the limit. He won't get any girls.

 

[DanP]

Hmmm. If you're afraid I'm accusing you of being a sociopath because you recommended acting like God's gift to women, then rest assured I am not. I am not sure how you, DanP, would describe someone who acts like that, but I assume you would describe someone who is successful with women, and not obnoxious. The trouble you were having with Georgina stemmed from the fact that, when a woman describes a man as acting like God's Gift to women, it is a bad thing: he's too cocky, obnoxious about it, over the limit. He won't get any girls.

Sorry no. I am not afraid of you accusing me being a sociopath simply because I usually don't give a **** what 3rd parties think about me. If it makes you pleasure to tell me I am a sociopath, or a nerd or whatever, please be my guest. It has no consequences whatsoever for me.

I just can't understand how someone can label ppl form a certain category and throw them all in the sociopath category. Even you believe such a man won't get any girls, because he too cooky and obnoxious, how the heck is he a sociopath ?

 

[DanP]

Because of the surprise "snapper" at the end that post actually ends up not being about "God's Gifts" or sociopaths at all, but an ironic and biting remark about girls being attracted to the wrong guys.
*Merriam-Websters

Mmm... Maybe the women attracted to the wrong guys are sociopaths ? (why does the guy have to be the sociopath ?) Did it happened to you ? Being attracted time and again to the wrong man ?

 

[DanP]

The trouble you were having with Georgina stemmed from the

What "trouble" ? Do you always refer to a disagreement as "trouble" ?

 

[Sorry!]

This thread has been highly entertaining thank you.
Just for the record I definitely think I'm a gift to women. Not from god though... from my mother. I'm very cocky and quiet arrogant when it comes to women but I can't say I've ever had a problem with them.

bahahaha, some people on this forum crack me up. 27thousand, zooby, DanP haha man epic thread.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Sorry no. I am not afraid of you accusing me being a sociopath simply because I usually don't give a **** what 3rd parties think about me. If it makes you pleasure to tell me I am a sociopath, or a nerd or whatever, please be my guest. It has no consequences whatsoever for me.

I just can't understand how someone can label ppl form a certain category and throw them all in the sociopath category. Even you believe such a man won't get any girls, because he too cooky and obnoxious, how the heck is he a sociopath ?

Mmm... Maybe the women attracted to the wrong guys are sociopaths ? (why does the guy have to be the sociopath ?) Did it happened to you ? Being attracted time and again to the wrong man ?

What "trouble" ? Do you always refer to a disagreement as "trouble" ?

You seem to have gotten needlessly upset, and your reading comprehension has gone south. Now you're throwing random strawmen at me. It's too bad, because I actually agree with your basic "God's Gift" idea, at least to the extent it's better to err on the cocky side than to be too insecure.

 

[DanP]

You seem to have gotten needlessly upset, and your reading comprehension has gone south. Now you're throwing random strawmen at me. It's too bad, because I actually agree with your basic "God's Gift" idea, at least to the extent it's better to err on the cocky side than to be too insecure.

Smile, no one is upset I really do want to get into your head and understand why you call those kind of man sociopaths. So tell me please how you got to the conclusion of "Gods Gift" man are sociopaths.

(yes, I enjoy every logical fallacy in the book. they work :P )

 

[zoobyshoe]

(yes, I enjoy every logical fallacy in the book. they work :P )

Thanks much for the confession:

http://www.centex.net/~elliott/1959/troll_doll_1959_pants.gif

 

[DanP]

Thanks much for the confession:

[/PLAIN]

Trolling is not the not the issue. The issue is your generalizations.

You failed time and again to explain your generalization of "god's gift" to sociopath. Id pretty much want to know again why do you make this generalization. On what basis ? I ask you again. Can you please explain ? This time, please, leave apart smart remarks, assumption on my upset state, whatever. Just do what you are asked to, explain your statement.

Can you please ?

 

[rootX]

I haven't gone too far into the thread but zoobyshoe, you seem to be making up the things

 

[Moonbear]

Because I defined it that way. I addressed, but then shunted aside, the conventional understanding of someone who thinks they are "God's Gift to Women," Then pulled a switcheroo, offering an "alternative" description of an alleged different sort of "God's Gift" , which was, in fact, culled from things I've read about sociopaths. Then the punchline: 3.) "It's a doomed quest: most guys like this are sociopaths."

I don't know what to tell you, Moonbear. That post was a witticism. Georgina grasped the gist of it. It's not intended to be accurate. It's intended to be true. The two sentences previous to this are another witticism. A witticism is "a cleverly witty and often biting or ironic remark"*. Because of the surprise "snapper" at the end that post actually ends up not being about "God's Gifts" or sociopaths at all, but an ironic and biting remark about girls being attracted to the wrong guys.



*Merriam-Websters

Oh, so it was just a failed attempt at humor? Okay. We can leave it at that then. I don't get it, but if that's all it was, no sense pursuing it further.

 

[Redbelly98]

You failed time and again to explain your generalization of "god's gift" to sociopath. Id pretty much want to know again why do you make this generalization. On what basis ?

I ask you again. Can you please explain ? This time, please, leave apart smart remarks, assumption on my upset state, whatever. Just do what you are asked to, explain your statement.

Can you please ?

As Moonbear points out, the explanation has been given already:

I'm not seeing how someone who believes they are god's gift to women is a sociopath either.

Because I defined it that way. I addressed, but then shunted aside, the conventional understanding of someone who thinks they are "God's Gift to Women," Then pulled a switcheroo, offering an "alternative" description of an alleged different sort of "God's Gift" , which was, in fact, culled from things I've read about sociopaths. Then the punchline: 3.) "It's a doomed quest: most guys like this are sociopaths."

I don't know what to tell you, Moonbear. That post was a witticism. Georgina grasped the gist of it. It's not intended to be accurate. It's intended to be true. The two sentences previous to this are another witticism. A witticism is "a cleverly witty and often biting or ironic remark"*. Because of the surprise "snapper" at the end that post actually ends up not being about "God's Gifts" or sociopaths at all, but an ironic and biting remark about girls being attracted to the wrong guys.
*Merriam-Websters

Time to move on please.

 

[27Thousand]

This thread has been highly entertaining thank you.
Just for the record I definitely think I'm a gift to women. Not from god though... from my mother. I'm very cocky and quiet arrogant when it comes to women but I can't say I've ever had a problem with them.

bahahaha, some people on this forum crack me up. 27thousand, zooby, DanP haha man epic thread.

This is not supposed to be entertaining, but rather we're serious

I mean like seriously, mathematical equations for dating would be da bomb!

 

[27Thousand]

I'm excited!

Now I found this interesting! : Online Tutorials on Mathematical Psychology http://www.mathpsyc.uni-bonn.de/tutorials.htm" I didn't even know that existed, but there's a field in psychology that works on creating mathematical models to explain/predict! Wow!

So as far as being creative goes, Newton took others' mathematical ideas and then combined them in unique/useful ways. I need to use R computer language for Statistics to teach myself the different techniques on that Mathematical Website link, then I'll use playful imagination to see what I can come up with in using math for flirting!

As far as being creative goes, I emailed some professors who publish in peer-review journals and asked them about mathematical equations to predict whether a woman is flirting. They said they hadn't heard of someone who's done that before. So this could be useful to create these equations!

 

[Sorry!]

This is not supposed to be entertaining, but rather we're serious

I mean like seriously, mathematical equations for dating would be da bomb!

Why don't you just go to a dating website where they already have the formula and it is based on volunteering information which spews out non-sense rather than you yourself somehow 'gaining' this 'information' about random girls (who you don't know if they like you or not) and applying it to a formula which spews out non-sense.

An even faster method of getting a girl is to grow some balls, hit puberty, get off my internets, stop trying so hard, and ask a girl their name and out to coffee.

 

[27Thousand]

Why don't you just go to a dating website where they already have the formula and it is based on volunteering information which spews out non-sense rather than you yourself somehow 'gaining' this 'information' about random girls (who you don't know if they like you or not) and applying it to a formula which spews out non-sense.

An even faster method of getting a girl is to grow some balls, hit puberty, get off my internets, stop trying so hard, and ask a girl their name and out to coffee.

Post 58 explains and clears up the confusion on this https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472787&postcount=58"

Just like some have learning disorders/dyslexia, what is to keep some from neurologically having problems with using gut feeling and instinct to pick up on social/flirting situations? For people like this, it's utterly useless for them to go on gut feeling and instinct. If they're good at Science, then they may need to take that other medium, just like some are visual learners while others are other types of learners. You know what I'm saying?

 

[DanP]

As Moonbear points out, the explanation has been given already:Time to move on please.

Sorry, that is not explanation, man. It's anything but an explanation, for that matter. It fails to address why the poster put a full category of man in the sociopath category. It's a joke.

 

[Redbelly98]

Yes, it was a joke. Or an attempt at one. You don't have to find it funny, or agree with it.

Get over it.

 

[DanP]

Yes, it was a joke. Or an attempt at one. You don't have to find it funny, or agree with it.

Get over it.

Ok, then you will understand that I required an explanation, not a joke.

Get over it.

 

[BobG]

The etc part is important.

I love etc. Etc is the best part of a relationship. Unless she turns out to be some sort of idiot and is interested in ect instead. I hate women that are into ect instead of etc.

Don't stick pins through their wings and tack them down to styrofoam board and stare at them through a magnifying glass.

I agree with this, too. Not only is this a big turn-off for most women, it will get you tossed into a maximum security prison for life.

Trying to calculate the whole thing just makes the situation awkward and weird.

Alas! Unfortunately, this statement is true, as well. There's graphs that clearly show this.

It doesn't really matter, anyway. I'm becoming kind of turned off to the whole idea of marriage. It seems like that's something that can quickly get out of hand.

 

[tmyer2107]

This thread has been highly entertaining thank you.

I agree, very entertaining indeed. Although I probably should have been working rather than reading through all of this.

Why don't you just go to a dating website where they already have the formula and it is based on volunteering information which spews out non-sense rather than you yourself somehow 'gaining' this 'information' about random girls (who you don't know if they like you or not) and applying it to a formula which spews out non-sense.

An even faster method of getting a girl is to grow some balls, hit puberty, get off my internets, stop trying so hard, and ask a girl their name and out to coffee.

I agree here as well. You can learn a lot more through actual experience with women, not by running them through some statistical model in your head.

Post 58 explains and clears up the confusion on this https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472787&postcount=58"

Just like some have learning disorders/dyslexia, what is to keep some from neurologically having problems with using gut feeling and instinct to pick up on social/flirting situations? For people like this, it's utterly useless for them to go on gut feeling and instinct. If they're good at Science, then they may need to take that other medium, just like some are visual learners while others are other types of learners. You know what I'm saying?

Like I said above, practice makes perfect. Even if you do have some neurological issue with picking up on a women's intentions, working on overcoming that issue through practice and experience is going to be a lot more beneficial to you than trying to analyze them and run them through your equations.

p.s. - I don't personally know any men that really understand women and can always read their body language and figure out their intentions. Some may be better than others but most of us will always find ourselves completely confused more often than we would like. If I ran off to write equations everytime I misread a girl's body language I would still be writing them today. And I'd probably be single.

 

[Sorry!]

I think most guys are born with a 'disorder' that doesn't let them clearly see womens intentions with them then. The difference between some guys is that they are scared to get embarassed. This has very little to do with the GIRLS intentions with YOU it has to do with your intentions with the girls.

Back when I was single everytime I would go talk to a girl I would hardly know anything abotu their intentions with me (unless they kept like looking over or something) I would just find someone I thought looked cute and go on over there and TALK to them. It does not take a rocket scientists to strike up a conversation. Of course if you were autistic or something of the sort we may have a problem. But beign able to read a girls intentions? Come on, I feel like your juts making excuses to make yourself feel like it's ok to be a chicken.

 

[DanP]

p.s. - I don't personally know any men that really understand women and can always read their body language and figure out their intentions. Some may be better than others but most of us will always find ourselves completely confused more often than we would like. If I ran off to write equations everytime I misread a girl's body language I would still be writing them today. And I'd probably be single.

There might be some truth in this whole theorem and equations of sex and body language. I gave it a very through thought and I started to lay the axioms down:

AXIOM 1
"no man has an erectile dysfunction"

AXIOM 2
"everyone is going to get laid sooner or later"

THEOREM 1

" If she is naked and her legs are on your shoulders, you will have intercourse."

 

[DanP]

p.s. - I don't personally know any men that really understand women and can always read their body language and figure out their intentions.

This is an A++ post. For a man ,the only way to get even remotely close to 100% in understanding women is to get daily massive doses of estrogens intravenous.

And this is a great thing !

 

[BobG]

AXIOM 1
"no man has an erectile dysfunction"

This is incorrect. Erectile dysfunction is the reason Manny Ramirez was taking gonadotropins LH and HCG, which are most commonly used by women as fertility drugs. While mainly prescribed for females, they also stimulate testosterone production for men with erectile dysfuntion if the erectile dysfuntion is caused by a testosterone deficiency (a condition that's a common side effect of steroid use).

AXIOM 2
"everyone is going to get laid sooner or later"

This is only true if AXIOM 3 is "all humans are reincarnated after they die". At least I hope it's true. Maybe hell is to be eternally reincarnated into a person who can never get laid.

THEOREM 1

" If she is naked and her legs are on your shoulders, you will have intercourse."

Which lifetime? This one? Next one? The one after the next one? (Not to be impatient or anything, but I really need to know).

 

[DanP]

This is incorrect. Erectile dysfunction is the reason Manny Ramirez was taking gonadotropins LH and HCG, which are most commonly used by women as fertility drugs. While mainly prescribed for females, they also stimulate testosterone production for men with erectile dysfuntion if the erectile dysfuntion is caused by a testosterone deficiency (a condition that's a common side effect of steroid use).

Did he really had an ED, or was taking various things and estrogen blockers to recover faster from training ? Kinda common with many athletes. Various forms of Tamoxifen are commonly used around here by male athletes.

 

[GeorginaS]

http://comics.com/pearls_before_swine/2009-12-05/

 

[27Thousand]

http://comics.com/pearls_before_swine/2009-12-05/

As far as working, if I base it on research that beats the null, then I'll get some sort of patterns going. The only possible concern, how strong/weak will these equations be? If I keep on tweaking at it/looking for new areas of info, then I might come up with something decent. By looking at many studies/data sets, I could come up with something not one of them alone could come up with (Aristotle said the whole is more than the sum of its parts). If the equation has predictive value (important in Science) and is falsifiable, then why not? Even if it says "Given these 5 variables, there is a 80% probability it'll be between this and this range", it would be useful for flirting technology to come up with it.

 

[27Thousand]

Didn't mathematical models work for Galileo and Newton?

 

[whs]

Didn't mathematical models work for Galileo and Newton?

Correct, but for worth while ideas.

Don't like to be rash, but using math to 'read' someone for dating/flirting is pointless and a horrible idea. It shows that you have a complete miss-understanding of basic human communication.

You keep posting random graphs and then go on to say that you want to tweak it by "adding calculus in" or "adding <insert random branch of math> in" which doesn't even make sense, showing you don't understand the math behind what you are attempting to say.

How about you actually do one of these "experiments" and come back when you actually have some results instead of just posting the same graphs and subjects in many different threads?

I'm sure some people here would love to hear how you wasted your time.

whs, OUT.